Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:1793
`
`
`JEAN-PAUL CIARDULLO, CA Bar No. 284170
` jciardullo@foley.com
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-972-4500
`Facsimile: 213-486-0065
`
`ELEY O. THOMPSON (pro hac vice)
` ethompson@foley.com
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60654-5313
`Telephone: 312-832-4359
`Facsimile: 312-83204700
`
`RUBEN J. RODRIGUES (pro hac vice)
`rrodrigues@foley.com
`LUCAS I. SILVA (pro hac vice)
`lsilva@foley.com
`JOHN W. CUSTER (pro hac vice)
`jcuster@foley.com
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2500
`Boston, MA 02199-7610
`Telephone: (617) 342-4000
`Facsimile: (617) 342-4001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Philips North America LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
` Case No. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC’s
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips North America LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`Garmin International, Inc. and
`Garmin Ltd.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:1794
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 1
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ................................................................................. 2
`A. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,013,007 (THE ’007 PATENT) ................................. 2
`B.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,088,233 (THE ’233 PATENT) ................................. 2
`C.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,976,958 (THE ’958 PATENT) ................................. 3
`D. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,277,377 (THE ’377 PATENT) ................................. 4
`E.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,314,192 (THE ’192 PATENT) ................................. 4
`F.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,801,542 (THE ’542 PATENT) ................................. 4
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................... 5
`IV. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................... 5
`A.
`’007 PATENT: “MEANS FOR COMPUTING ATHLETIC
`PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK DATA FROM THE SERIES OF
`TIME-STAMPED WAYPOINTS OBTAINED BY SAID GPS
`RECEIVER” ................................................................................................. 5
`Construction of function (claims 1, 21). ................................................ 5
`i.
`The term is not indefinite (claims 1, 21)................................................ 6
`ii.
`’007 PATENT: “MEANS FOR PRESENTING THE ATHLETIC
`PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK DATA TO AN ATHLETE”
`(CLAIMS 1, 21) ........................................................................................... 9
`’007 PATENT: “MEANS FOR SUSPENDING AND RESUMING
`OPERATION OF SAID MEANS FOR COMPUTING WHEN A
`SPEED OF THE ATHLETE FALLS BELOW A PREDETERMINED
`THRESHOLD” (CLAIM 7) ....................................................................... 10
`’007 PATENT: “MEANS FOR EXCHANGING GPS ROUTE
`WAYPOINTS VIA SAID INTERNET WEB SITE” (CLAIM 25) .......... 11
`’233 PATENT: “GOVERNING INFORMATION TRANSMITTED
`BETWEEN THE FIRST PERSONAL DEVICE AND THE SECOND
`DEVICE” (CLAIM 1) ................................................................................ 11
`’233 PATENT: “WIRELESS COMMUNICATION” (CLAIMS 1, 13,
`15, 16) ......................................................................................................... 13
`’233 PATENT: “FIRST PERSONAL DEVICE” (1, 10, 14, 24) .............. 14
`’233 PATENT: “BODY OR PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS”
`(CLAIMS 8, 9) ........................................................................................... 15
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` PHILIPS REPLY ON MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`H.
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:1795
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`R.
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`U.
`
`V.
`
`W.
`
`’233 PATENT: “LOCATION DETERMINATION MODULE”
`(CLAIM 24) ............................................................................................... 15
`’233 PATENT: “THE BI-DIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
`MODULE HAS A POWERED-DOWN STATE.” (CLAIM 26) .............. 15
`’233 PATENT: “MEANS FOR SIGNALING THE BI-
`DIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS MODULE TO
`TRANSITION FROM THE POWERED-DOWN STATE TO THE
`POWERED-UP STATE” (CLAIM 26) ..................................................... 16
`’958 PATENT: “INTERNET-ENABLED WIRELESS WEB
`DEVICE” (CLAIMS 15-17) ...................................................................... 17
`’958 PATENT: “HEALTH PARAMETER [OR VISUAL DATA]
`[INDICATIVE / CORRESPONDING TO] OF A DISEASE STATE
`OR CONDITION OF A PATIENT” (CLAIMS 15, 16) ............................ 18
`’958 PATENT: “DISEASE STATE OR CONDITION” (CLAIMS 15,
`16) ............................................................................................................... 19
`’958 PATENT: “HEALTH MONITORING DEVICE” (CLAIMS 15,
`16) ............................................................................................................... 19
`’377 PATENT: “A METHOD FOR INTERACTIVE EXERCISE
`MONITORING” (CLAIM 1) ..................................................................... 20
`’377 PATENT: “WEB-ENABLED WIRELESS PHONE” (CLAIM 1) ... 20
`’377 PATENT: “WHEREIN AT LEAST ONE OF THE DATA
`INDICATING A PHYSIOLOGIC STATUS OF A SUBJECT OR
`THE DATA INDICATING AN AMOUNT OF EXERCISE
`PERFORMED BY THE SUBJECT IS RECEIVED FROM THE
`DEVICE WHICH PROVIDES EXERCISE RELATED
`INFORMATION, AND WHEREIN THE DATA INDICATING A
`PHYSIOLOGIC STATUS OF A SUBJECT IS RECEIVED AT
`LEAST PARTIALLY WHILE THE SUBJECT IS EXERCISING”
`(CLAIM 1) ................................................................................................. 21
`’377 PATENT: “SENDING THE EXERCISE-RELATED
`INFORMATION TO AN INTERNET SERVER.” (CLAIM 1) ............... 21
`’377 PATENT: “CALCULATED RESPONSE FROM THE
`SERVER, THE RESPONSE ASSOCIATED WITH A
`CALCULATION PERFORMED BY THE SERVER BASED ON
`THE EXERCISE-RELATED INFORMATION.” (CLAIM 1) ................. 22
`’192 PATENT: “ANY ONE OF A PLURALITY OF POSITIONS ON
`A BODY OF A SUBJECT.” (CLAIMS 1, 20) .......................................... 22
`’192 PATENT: “ANALYZING THE MEASURED VALUE FOR
`FEATURES THAT ARE POSITION DEPENDENT” (CLAIMS 1,
`20) ............................................................................................................... 23
`’192 PATENT: “DERIVE A SUBJECT-RELATED VALUE FROM
`THE MEASURED VALUE, WHERE THE DERIVATION OF THE
`SUBJECT RELATED VALUE ALSO DEPENDS ON THE ONE OF
`2
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:1796
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`Y.
`
`Z.
`
`THE PLURALITY OF POSITIONS OF THE SENSOR ON THE
`SUBJECT” (CLAIMS 1, 20 (SIMILAR)) ................................................. 23
`’542 PATENT: “USING ONE OR MORE SENSORS PHYSICALLY
`COUPLED TO THE USER AND CONNECTED TO A NETWORK,
`TO MONITOR ONE OR MORE VITAL PARAMETERS,
`PROVIDING DATA REPRESENTATIVE OF THE USER’S
`PHYSICAL CONDITION” (CLAIM 13) .................................................. 24
`’542 PATENT: “ANALYZING THE ONE OR MORE VITAL
`PARAMETERS USING A STATISTICAL ANALYZER” (CLAIM
`13) ............................................................................................................... 24
`’542 PATENT: “TRAINED WITH TRAINING DATA
`REPRESENTING PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
`DETERMINED TO BE UNDESIRABLE FOR THE USER” (CLAIM
`13) ............................................................................................................... 24
`’542 PATENT: “WARNING INDICATION WHEN THE USER’S
`PHYSICAL CONDITION IS UNDESIRABLE” (CLAIM 13) ................ 24
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`AA.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:1797
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp.,
`841 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................. 7, 9
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Comms., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................... 7
`Applied Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................... 1
`Asyst Tech., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 10
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ 8
`Cardia Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................... 1
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................... 19
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 7
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 16
`Koninklijke Philips, N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113735 (D. Mass. Aug 15, 2014) (J. Gorton) ...................... 1, 8
`MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................... 16
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 1
`Medtronic Minimed Inv. v. Animas Corp.,
`21 F.Supp.3d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:1798
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................................ 1, 16
`S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 7
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................ 1
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 .................................................................................................... 1, 7, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:1799
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Philips North America, LLC (“Philips”) submits its opening claim
`construction brief. As demonstrated below, Philips’s proposed constructions are
`grounded in the intrinsic record and the plain meaning of various terms to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, while Defendants Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin, Ltd.’s
`(collectively, “Garmin”) proposals are divorced from the specifications of the asserted
`patents—in some instances going so far as to exclude exemplary embodiments. While
`Garmin might desire unreasonable constructions that would ensnare prior art, or support
`non-infringement arguments, those are not the tenets that should guide the Court’s
`constructions. Of the 28 terms disputed, Philips only identified five, while the remaining
`23 terms were put into dispute by Garmin.
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`I.
`Claim construction should stay true to the meaning that a claim would have to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the intrinsic record. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The patent specification “is the single
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Expert testimony can be useful “to ensure that the
`court’s understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the patent or the
`prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1318.
`When claim construction involves disputed means-plus-function limitations, the
`Court must identify the claimed function and the corresponding structure that performs
`that function. See Applied Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324,
`1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Ordinary principles of claim construction govern the
`interpretation of the claim language used to describe the function.” Cardia Pacemakers,
`Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A means-plus-function
`claim is construed to cover “the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification
`and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6; see also McGinley v. Franklin Sports,
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
` PHILIPS REPLY ON MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:1800
`
`
`Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Drafters of means-plus-function claim
`limitations are statutorily guaranteed a range of equivalents extending beyond that which
`is explicitly disclosed in the patent document itself.”)
`II. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,013,007 (the ’007 Patent)
`The ’007 Patent is entitled “Athlete’s GPS-Based Performance Monitor,” and
`describes exemplary embodiments where a “Global Positioning System (GPS) based
`personal athletic performance monitor for providing an athlete with real-time athletic
`performance feedback data such as elapsed exercise time, distance covered, average pace,
`elevation difference, distance to go and/or advice for reaching pre-set targets.” (Ex. 1 at
`Abstract.) One embodiment of the ’007 Patent includes an “Internet web site which
`displays comparison data representing the relative performances of two or more athletes,
`provides customized individual training advice and virtual competitions, and an
`opportunity for advertisers to reach highly well-defined potential customers.” (Ex. 1 at
`Abstract.) As shown in Fig. 2, an athlete wears the GPS-based performance monitor 101
`during an exercise session, while Fig. 6 provides a schematic view of various components
`of an exemplary embodiment that includes a CPU and memory.
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,088,233 (the ’233 Patent)
`The ’233 Patent, entitled a “Personal Medical Device Communication System and
`Method,” utilizes “two-way communication devices and a bi-directional communication
`network” and “provides multiple levels” of prioritization and various types of
`authentication. (Ex. 3 at Title, Abstract). Fig. 5 demonstrates an exemplary embodiment:
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:1801
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`(Ex. 3 at Fig. 5.) In Fig. 5, the personal device 100 of victim V is in short-range wireless
`communication (via, for example, BLUETOOTH) with a second device of a bystander B.
`(See Ex. 3 at 11:49-66.) The personal device of victim V can then be in wireless
`communication with other aspects of the network. (See Ex. 3 at 12:1-37.)
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,976,958 (the ’958 Patent)
`The ’958 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Health and Disease
`Management Combining Patient Data Monitoring With Wireless Internet Connectivity,”
`and describes exemplary embodiments that “provide[] a method and system for assisting
`patients to manage a disease or maintain healthy lifestyle by collecting health-related data
`and providing information in response to those data by means of [an internet-enabled
`wireless web device (“WWD”)] designed to display interactive information through a
`connection to the Internet.” (Ex. 2 at 3:27-32.)
`In an exemplary embodiment, an “internet-enabled wireless web device” (“WWD”),
`such as a mobile phone, receives health parameters from a health monitoring device, such
`as a heart rate monitor. (Ex. 2 at 3:44-51, 5:58-67). The health parameters correspond to a
`“patient,” however the term “patient” is explained as referring to either “a person under the
`care of a physician” or “a ‘normal’ or healthy individual who is interested in maintaining
`a healthy physiologic balance.” (Ex. 2 at 6:7-11). An important feature of the ’958 Patent
`is the presence of an intermediary internet-enabled wireless web device (e.g. an off-the-
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:1802
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`shelf PDA or web-enabled wireless phone), where the intermediary device itself stores a
`health parameter—even when communication of the intermediary device with the internet
`might be interrupted. (See e.g., Ex. 2 at, 14:19-33, Fig. 11.)
`D. U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377 (the ’377 Patent)
`The ’377 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Monitoring Exercise With
`Wireless Internet Connectivity” and describes exemplary embodiments “for wireless
`monitoring of exercise, fitness, or nutrition by connecting a web-enabled wireless phone
`to a device which provides exercise-related information, including physiological data and
`data indicating an amount of exercise performed.” (Ex. 4 at Abstract.) The invention
`further provides that an “application for receiving the exercise-related information and
`providing a user interface may be downloaded to the web-enabled wireless phone from
`an internet server. The exercise-related information may be transmitted to an internet
`server, and the server may calculate and return a response.” (Ex. 4 at Abstract.)
`E. U.S. Patent No. 9,314,192 (the ’192 Patent)
`The ’192 Patent is entitled “Detection and Compensation Method for Monitoring
`the Place of Activity on the Body” and describes as an exemplary embodiment an
`“activity monitor” that “monitors the degree of activity performed by [a] subject.” (Ex. 8
`at 3:20-22.) Such a system includes a sensor “arranged to be attached at one of a
`plurality of positions on [a] subject.” (Ex. 8 at Abstract) The sensor obtains a measured
`value “correlated with activity,” such as “temperature, ECG, or acceleration.” (Ex. 8 at
`3:47-50) One of a plurality of positions on the body is then determined from this
`measured value. (See Ex. 8 at 4:4-64; Fig. 6; 8:13-56) A subject-related value, such as
`“an activity parameter,” may then be derived from the measured value and determined
`position. (Ex. 8 at 3:17-24.) Exemplary activity parameters include “energy expenditure”
`and “a degree of activity.” (Ex. 8 at 3:28-46.)
`F. U.S. Patent No. 9,801,542 (the ’542 Patent)
`The ’542 Patent is entitled “Health Monitoring Appliance” and describes a variety
`of ways for monitoring health and maintaining wellness, including via one or more
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:1803
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`sensors coupled to the body by, for example, a wrist worn device. (See Ex. 9 at 7:35-8:9;
`Figs. 6A-6B.) In one exemplary embodiment, vital parameters are collected from
`network connected sensors and a “statistical analyzer [] trained with training data” is used
`to determined that “certain signals are undesirable” so that a warning can be provided.
`(Ex. 9 at 9:16-46.)
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The parties have agreed to the level of ordinary skill in the art put forth in the Joint
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. (See Dkt. 73 at 4.)
`IV. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`’007 Patent: “means for computing athletic performance feedback data
`A.
`from the series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver”
`Construction of function (claims 1, 21).
`i.
`Garmin asserts that the claim is indefinite for lack of algorithmic support in the
`specification, but does not propose any construction as to the claimed function. The
`parties do not dispute that the following constitutes function: “computing athletic
`performance feedback data from the series of time stamped waypoints obtained by
`said GPS receiver”, but dispute whether this function should be further construed:
`
`Philips’s Proposal
`determining any of the following from a series of
`time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS
`receiver during and exercise session: elapsed
`distance of an athlete; current or average speed of
`an athlete; current or average pace of an athlete.
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`None specifically proposed,
`instead, merely contends that the
`overall term is indefinite.
`
`The ’007 patent generally describes different types of “performance feedback” of
`an athlete during an exercise session as including “elapsed time, elapsed distance, current
`and average speeds and paces, [and] current climbing rate.” (See Ex. 1 at 2:8-13; see also
`Ex. 1 at Abstract (“athletic performance feedback data such as elapsed exercise time,
`distance covered, average pace, elevation difference, distance to go and/or advice for
`reaching pre-set targets.”).) Claims 1 and 21 of the ’007 Patent, however, concern only
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:1804
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`athletic performance feedback data that is computed “from a series of time-stamped
`waypoints obtained by a GPS receiver,” meaning that not all types of athletic
`performance feedback data are claimed. For example, while the patent explains that a
`“current climbing rate” or “elevation distance” constitute athletic performance feedback
`data, the patent explains that this form of athletic performance feedback is computed
`from a barometric pressure sensor and not a series of time-stamped GPS waypoints:
`“Elevation changes can be determined by measuring changes in the atmospheric pressure.
`A barometric pressure sensor 610 is used to calculate the relative elevation changes
`during the exercise Session.” (Ex. 1 at 8:48-51.) Climbing rate is therefore not “athletic
`performance feedback data” as contemplated by the claim because it is not computed
`from a series of time-stamped GPS waypoints.
`The ’007 Patent also describes the types of data that can be calculated from GPS
`position and time information, even though not everything that one can calculate from
`GPS data would constitute “athletic performance feedback data.” Items that the patent
`discloses as determinable from GPS waypoints includes “elapsed distance, current and
`average speeds and paces, calories burned, miles remaining, and time remaining.” (Ex. 1
`at 7:40-50.) In each instance, the values must be computed from a “series of time
`stamped waypoints” as opposed to simply current distance or current time.
`
`Philips’s proposed construction captures the overlap between athletic
`performance feedback in the specification, which necessarily reflects feedback on the
`athletes performance provided during an exercise session, and the set of items that the
`specification discloses as being calculated from a series of time-stamped waypoints.
`The term is not indefinite (claims 1, 21).
`ii.
`It is Garmin’s burden to prove indefiniteness with clear and convincing evidence—
`a burden it cannot meet. That said, any inquiry into whether or not the claimed function
`is supported by the specification requires that the above dispute on the construction of
`function be resolved first, and Philips would ask for the ability to fully brief
`indefiniteness issues after claim construction. Even so, the claim is not indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:1805
`
`
`To comply with the definiteness requirements of § 112 ¶ 6 the specification need
`only “disclose, at least to the satisfaction of one of ordinary skill in the art, enough of an
`algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV
`Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The required algorithm can be
`expressed “in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or
`as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Id (internal
`citation omitted). The algorithm need only “disclose adequate defining structure to render
`the bounds of the claim understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” AllVoice
`Computing PLC v. Nuance Comms., Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Importantly, there is no requirement that the specification disclose information that
`a person of ordinary skill would already know as “[t]he law is clear that patent documents
`need not include subject matter that is known in the field of the invention and is in the
`prior art, for patents are written for persons experienced in the field of invention.” S3 Inc.
`v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, a patent provides adequate
`algorithmic structure if, based on the specification, a person of ordinary skill would know
`to apply a well-known or basic formula to achieve the recited function, even where said
`formula may not be expressly disclosed in the specification. See e.g., Alfred E. Mann
`Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp., 841 F.3d 1334, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(finding sufficient disclosure of an algorithm as a person of ordinary skill would know to
`apply Ohm’s law to calculate impedance, even though it was not expressly disclosed).
`Here, the structure for performing the claimed function is a processor (CPU) that
`also utilizes memory and is connected to a GPS receiver module that provides
`geographical position information signals to the memory for storage, as demonstrated in
`Fig. 6 of the patent:
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:1806
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1 at Fig. 6.) The specification explains a structure as including a CPU 602 with
`memory 608 that receives location signals from the GPS module. (See Ex. 1 at 5:38-50.)
`The series of time stamped waypoints are accessed from the memory 602 to determine
`the “athletic performance feedback data.” (See Ex. 1 at Fig. 6.)
`There is little doubt that “one skilled in the art” would “know and understand what
`structure corresponds to the means limitation.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Garmin is incorrect in asserting
`that computer programming steps are the only way that structure may properly be
`specified. The specification and the claim itself describe how the CPU interacts with
`other components, demonstrating that it is not merely a “black box” that achieves a result
`but is an integrated structure of multiple components. Koninklijke Philips, N.V. v. Zoll
`Med. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113735 at *23-24 (D. Mass. Aug 15, 2014) (J.
`Gorton); see also Medtronic Minimed Inv. v. Animas Corp., 21 F.Supp.3d 1060, 1070-71
`(C.D. Cal. 2014). The claims are not the sort of unbounded claims typically found
`invalid for lack of algorithmic support. Rather, the specification provides that “the GPS
`receiver module 604 continuously determines the athlete’s geographical position and
`stores it in the memory 608…” (Ex. 1, at 7:41-50.) and the claims require that athletic
`
`8
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 77 Filed 06/26/20 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:1807
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`performance feedback data be determined “from the series of time-stamped waypoints
`obtained by the GPS receiver”—a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as providing the framework by which to
`calculated athletic performance feedback data—no further algorithm is required.
`Second, if an algorithm beyond what is described by the claims themselves were
`required, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specification does
`disclose an algorithm for computing various forms of elapsed distance, current and
`average speed, and current and average pace from a series of GPS waypoints—that is the
`algorithm. A person of ordinary skill would understand this as a sufficient algorithmic
`disclosure because all that is required is a basic high school understanding of geometry
`and trigonometry to implement the algorithm. See Alfred E. Mann Found., 841 F.3d at
`1345. This understanding of high school level math would be well within the
`wheelhouse of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as explained in the accompanying
`declaration of Dr. Thomas Martin, PhD. (See Ex. 5 Martin Decl. ¶¶ 13-26.) As
`explained in Dr. Martin’s declaration, determining distance between two GPS waypoints
`simply involves determining the distance between two points, while speed and pace are
`determined by simply dividing the distance by time or time by distance. (See id.)
`’007 Patent: “means for presenting the athletic performance feedback
`B.
`data to an athlete” (Claims 1, 21)
`The parties do not dispute the function of this 112 ¶ 6 term, but do dispute the structure:
`
`Philips’s Proposal
`No construction necessary,
`alternatively:
`Structure: “a display and/or
`audio headphones and
`equivalents thereof”
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`Structure: Wired headset (including all technical
`components for audio connections, amplification,
`speech synthesizer etc.). Feedback data is
`optionally also scrolled across the display while it
`is also being announced via the audio headphones.
`
`The parties agree that the recited function is presenting athletic performance
`feedback data to an athlete. (See Dkt. 73-2 at 2.) Yet, Garmin’s proposed structure
`incorporates items that do not present anything to an athlete (e.g. amplification, speech
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`PHILIPS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document