Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:2292
`
`
`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
`RESPONSIVE 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 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:2293
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`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.
`
`ii.
`
`v.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`PHILIPS’S PROPOSALS ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE
`ADOPTED .............................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`’007 PATENT: “MEANS FOR COMPUTING ATHLETIC
`PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK DATA FROM THE SERIES OF
`TIME-STAMPED WAYPOINTS OBTAINED BY SAID GPS
`RECEIVER” ................................................................................................. 1
`“Athletic performance feedback data” does not include
`calories burned ....................................................................................... 1
`The claim must be construed before addressing
`indefiniteness for lack of support under 5 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 .................. 2
`iii. No algorithm beyond the claims themselves is required. ...................... 2
`iv.
`To the extent an algorithm is required, a person of ordinary
`skill would understand the specification as disclosing one. .................. 3
`Corresponding structure must be tied to the claimed
`function. ................................................................................................. 4
`’007 PATENT: “MEANS FOR PRESENTING THE ATHLETIC
`PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK DATA TO AN ATHLETE”
`(CLAIMS 1, 21) ........................................................................................... 4
`’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) ......................................................................... 6
`’007 PATENT: “MEANS FOR EXCHANGING GPS ROUTE
`WAYPOINTS VIA SAID INTERNET WEB SITE” (CLAIM 25) ............ 7
`’233 PATENT: “GOVERNING INFORMATION TRANSMITTED
`BETWEEN THE FIRST PERSONAL DEVICE AND THE SECOND
`DEVICE” (CLAIM 1) .................................................................................. 8
`’233 PATENT: “WIRELESS COMMUNICATION” (CLAIMS 1, 13,
`15, 16) ......................................................................................................... 10
`’233 PATENT: “FIRST PERSONAL DEVICE” (1, 10, 14, 24) .............. 10
`’233 PATENT: “BODY OR PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS”
`(CLAIMS 8, 9) ........................................................................................... 11
`’233 PATENT: “LOCATION DETERMINATION MODULE”
`(CLAIM 24) ............................................................................................... 12
`’233 PATENT: “THE BI-DIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
`MODULE HAS A POWERED-DOWN STATE.” (CLAIM 26) .............. 13
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
` PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:2294
`
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`R.
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`U.
`
`V.
`
`W.
`
`X.
`
`’233 PATENT: “MEANS FOR SIGNALING THE BI-
`DIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS MODULE TO
`TRANSITION FROM THE POWERED-DOWN STATE TO THE
`POWERED-UP STATE” (CLAIM 26) ..................................................... 14
`’958 PATENT: “INTERNET-ENABLED WIRELESS WEB
`DEVICE” (CLAIMS 15-17) ...................................................................... 14
`’958 PATENT: “HEALTH PARAMETER [OR VISUAL DATA]
`[INDICATIVE / CORRESPONDING TO] OF A DISEASE STATE
`OR CONDITION OF A PATIENT” (CLAIMS 15, 16) ............................ 15
`’958 PATENT: “DISEASE STATE OR CONDITION” (CLAIMS 15,
`16) ............................................................................................................... 16
`’958 PATENT: “HEALTH MONITORING DEVICE” (CLAIMS 15,
`16) ............................................................................................................... 17
`’377 PATENT: “A METHOD FOR INTERACTIVE EXERCISE
`MONITORING” (CLAIM 1) ..................................................................... 18
`’377 PATENT: “WEB-ENABLED WIRELESS PHONE” (CLAIM 1) ... 18
`’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) ................................................................................................. 19
`’377 PATENT: “SENDING THE EXERCISE-RELATED
`INFORMATION TO AN INTERNET SERVER.” (CLAIM 1) ............... 20
`’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) ................. 21
`’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
`THE PLURALITY OF POSITIONS OF THE SENSOR ON THE
`SUBJECT” (CLS. 1, 20) ............................................................................ 23
`CLAIM 13 OF THE ’542 PATENT IS NOT INDEFINITE ..................... 24
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE 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 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:2295
`
`
`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
`ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC,
`No. 14-cv-503-WMC, 2016 WL 3963246 (W.D. Wisc. July 21, 2016) ...................... 25
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 6, 14
`Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Grp.,
`No. C 05-0114, 2007 WL 678317 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007) ....................................... 13
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp.,
`841 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 4
`Asyst Tech., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 4, 5, 7
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.,
`359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................... 12
`Biedermann Motech GmbH v. Acme Spine, LLC,
`No. 06-3619 SJO, 2007 WL 6210841 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2007) ............................... 13
`Celgene Corp. v. Hetero Labs Ltd.,
`No. 17-3387 (ES) (MAH), 2020 WL 3249117 (D. N.J. June 16, 2020) ...................... 13
`Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.,
`145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 4, 5, 7
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 25
`Ecolab USA Inc. v. Diversey, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-1984, 2014 WL 258570 (D. Minn. January 23, 2014) .............................. 16
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 4
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 6:10-CV-561 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 2505745 (E.D. Tex. June 28,
`2012) ........................................................................................................................... 3, 7
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:2296
`
`
`Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc.,
`686 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 21
`Internal Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................... 25
`JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................... 2
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... 8
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
`324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Nutrition 21, LLC v. General Nutrition Corp.,
` No. 6:05-CV-228, 2006 WL 2385279, *15 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2006) ...................... 13
`Norix Grp., Inc. v. Correctoinal Techs., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-07914, 2020 WL 1157369 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2020) .................................. 13
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 10
`Signal IP v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx), 2015 WL 5768344 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
`17, 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 3, 7
`Sinorgchem Co. v. Int’l Trade Com’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................... 11
`Sipex Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.,
`No. 99-10096-RWZ, 2002 WL 1046699 (D. Mass. May 24, 2002) .............................. 5
`Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 12–cv–05601–WHO, 2014 WL 5408179 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) .................... 25
`Typemock, Ltd. v. Telerik, Inc.,
`No. 17-10274-RGS, 2018 WL 4189692 (D. Mass. Aug. 31, 2018) ........................... 3, 7
`Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc.,
`473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE 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 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:2297
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE 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 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:2298
`
`
`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 responsive claim
`construction brief. Garmin’s opening claim construction brief (Dkt. 75) fails to justify
`why any of its proposed constructions—which not only lack support in the specifications
`but often contradict them—should be adopted. Garmin, whose arguments focus on
`invalidity rather than claim construction, fails to demonstrate, by clear and convincing
`evidence, the indefiniteness of any asserted claims. 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 and should be adopted.
`PHILIPS’S PROPOSALS ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE
`II.
`ADOPTED
`’007 Patent: “means for computing athletic performance feedback data
`A.
`from the series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS
`receiver”
`“Athletic performance feedback data” does not include calories
`i.
`burned
`
`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.
`
`Despite not proposing any construction for “athletic performance feedback data”
`Garmin’s opening brief makes clear that Garmin believes “calories burned” should be
`included in any construction of the term. Garmin seeks to include “calories burned” in
`order to buttress its indefiniteness argument because the other types of athletic
`performance data simply requires high school level math to determine some form of
`distance or speed from a series of time-stamped GPS waypoints. (See Dkt. 77, at 9 and
`Dkt. 77-6, Martin Decl. ¶¶ 18-25.)
`The written description only mentions calories twice. Once in describing how
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
` PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:2299
`
`
`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
`
`
`prior art treadmills displayed a measure of calories burned (See Dkt. 77-2 at 1:22-24), and
`again in characterizing how a number of items can constitute (more broadly) “athletic
`performance data” but never referring to calories burned as “athletic performance
`feedback data.” (See Dkt. 77-2 at 7:44-47.) Garmin has failed to explain how or why
`“calories burned” should be included in the construction of “athletic performance
`feedback data” given such a limited and ambiguous disclosure, nor why or how one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood “athletic performance feedback data” as
`including calories burned. They would not have. As explained in Philips’s opening
`brief, the specification unambiguously confirms that elapsed distance of an athlete,
`current or average speed of an athlete, or current or average pace of an athlete, all
`constitute athletic performance feedback data determined from a series of time-stamped
`GPS waypoints. (See Dkt. 77 at 5-6.) The term is not indefinite.
`The claim must be construed before addressing indefiniteness for
`ii.
`lack of support under 5 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`Federal Circuit precedent is manifest that, prior to evaluating the structural support
`for a means-plus-function term the function must first be determined and construed.1
`iii. No algorithm beyond the claims themselves is required.
`As explained in Philips’s opening brief, no algorithm beyond what is already
`recited in the claim is required. (See Dkt. 77, at 6-9.)
`First, Garmin ignores the fact that the claims themselves recite the requisite
`algorithm. The claims don’t simply say “means for calculating athletic performance
`feedback data” in the abstract as Garmin appears to assume. Rather, they require that
`athletic performance feedback data be calculated from a series of time-stamped
`waypoints obtained from a GPS receiver. (See Dkt. 77-2, at Claim 1.) Where, as here, a
`
`
`1 See JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (“Determining a claimed function and identifying structure corresponding to that
`function involve distinct, albeit related, steps that must occur in a particular order. In
`short, function must be determined before corresponding structure can be identified.”);
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`(“After identifying the function of the means-plus-function limitation and construing the
`meaning of the claim language, we look next to the written description to identify the
`structure corresponding to the function.”))
`
`2
`
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:2300
`
`
`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
`
`
`means-plus-function term recites its own underlying structure, no further analysis into
`specification support is necessary. See Typemock, Ltd. v. Telerik, Inc., No. 17-10274-
`RGS, 2018 WL 4189692, at *8 (D. Mass. Aug. 31, 2018) (“Because the claim language
`discloses the algorithm to perform the stated function, the court finds that the [disputed]
`terms are not subject to analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6, and are therefore not
`indefinite.”); Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., No. 6:10-CV-561 LED-JDL, 2012 WL
`2505745, at *23-24 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2012) (because the claims “include all the
`necessary algorithmic steps to perform the ‘means for translating’ function,” “the claim
`term cannot fall under § 112 ¶ 6”); Signal IP v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. LA CV14-
`02454 JAK (JEMx), 2015 WL 5768344, at *40 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015) (finding that
`though unusual, the algorithm required under § 112 ¶ 6 “is disclosed in the claim itself”).
`Second, the specific structure recited in the specification (a processor in
`communication with a GPS receiver and a memory) is more specific than a general
`purpose computer and also suffices to provide the requisite structure for determining
`athletic performance feedback data from a series of time-stamped GPS waypoints
`obtained from said GPS receiver. (See Dkt. 77, at 7-8.)
`iv. To the extent an algorithm is required, a person of ordinary skill
`would understand the specification as disclosing one.
`As explained in Philips’s opening brief, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that an algorithm is disclosed in the specification—namely, calculating
`athletic performance feedback data (elapsed distance, average or current speed, or current
`or average pace) from a series of GPS waypoints obtained from a GPS receiver. (See
`Dkt. 77, at 6-9 (explaining the applicable legal standards, and how well-known and basic
`formulas—even when forming part of algorithm—need not be expressly disclosed if a
`person or ordinary skill in the art would understand them from the disclosure).) This is
`consistent with the Federal Circuit’s instruction that a 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,” and that the algorithm can be expressed
`“in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow
`
`3
`
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:2301
`
`
`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
`
`
`chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v.
`DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).
`Here, the formulas for calculating distance, speed, and pace from a series of
`points—all of which involves high school level math—are not expressly disclosed in the
`specification, but are aspects of the algorithm that a POSITA would nevertheless be well
`aware of. See Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp., 841 F.3d
`1334, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding sufficient disclosure of an algorithm for calculating
`impedance since a person of ordinary skill would know to apply Ohm’s law, even though
`it was not expressly disclosed in the specification).
`Corresponding structure must be tied to the claimed function.
`v.
`Garmin attempts to bolster its indefiniteness argument by pointing to the
`specification’s discussion of potential ways to correct errors in GPS signals. (See Dkt. 75,
`at 4.) However, it would be error to require structural elements (such as an algorithm for
`error correction) that do not correspond to what the parties agree is the recited function.2
`An algorithm for correcting errors in GPS signals is not required because the
`claims are not directed to a “means for GPS error correction”—rather, the agreed
`function is simply “computing athletic performance feedback data from the series of
`time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver.” Any discussion in the
`specification about GPS error correction therefore does not correspond to the function
`that is actually claimed. Were Garmin’s argument adopted then every ancillary function
`to the actually claimed function could be read into the claim, which would be improper.
`’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:
`
`
`2 See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308-
`09 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (reversing district court for identifying structure that did not
`correspond to the recited function); Asyst Tech., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1370
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (limiting the structure to be included in claim construction because
`“[s]tructural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute
`corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations.”)
`
`4
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:2302
`
`
`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
`
`
`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 identified structure must correspond to the claimed function. See
`Chiuminatta, 145 F.3d at 1308-09; Asyst Tech., 268 F.3d at 1370. Here the parties agree
`that the claimed function is “presenting the athletic performance feedback data to an
`athlete.” Yet Garmin does not even try to explain why ancillary items that have nothing
`to do with the actual presenting of information (i.e. “connections, amplification, speech
`synthesizing, etc.”) should be included in the identified structure. Garmin’s proposal also
`fails to include “and equivalents thereof,” which § 112 ¶ 6 expressly contemplates should
`be included in any identification of structure.3
`Garmin admits that the specification discloses presenting information via both
`audio headphones and a display. (See Dkt. 75, at 5-6) However, Garmin argues that
`presenting via a display alone is not supported because one “object” of the intention is
`“reducing visual distractions and allowing for safely obtaining performance feedback
`along poorly illuminated tracks and trails.” (See id.) First, this recited “object” is one of
`14 items discussed in the specification, and it would be improper to incorporate each and
`every one of those “objects” into the claim simply because they were identified as
`“objects of the present invention.” Indeed, not even Garmin goes that far.
`Second, using a display alone is not inconsistent with the goal of “reducing visual
`distractions.” The specification does not bar presenting athletic performance feedback
`data. Even under Garmin’s argument it discloses using a display in conjunction with an
`
`
`3 See Sipex Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 99-10096-RWZ, 2002 WL
`1046699, at *1 (D. Mass. May 24, 2002) (“[I]t is typically appropriate for the
`construction of a means-plus-function claim to include the phrase ‘or equivalents thereof’
`because an equivalent structure that performs the same function can literally infringe the
`claim.”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:2303
`
`
`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
`
`
`audio headset. Yet, were Garmin’s argument taken to its natural conclusion this
`embodiment would run counter to the goal of “reducing visual distraction.”
`Third, to the extent Garmin’s reliance on the specification’s recitation of “present
`invention” had merit, that the specification goes on to contradict Garmin’s
`characterization of an “object” of the “present invention” by describing the presentation
`of athletic feedback data via a display demonstrates that the claim should not be limited
`to solely “audio” presentation means. See Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding use of “present invention” not limiting
`where specification itself contradicted purportedly limiting disclosure).
`
`Finally, Philips’s proposal does not “turn[] the teachings of the ’007 Patent on its
`head.” (See Dkt. 75, at 6.) Philips’s proposal is that the structure includes a display
`and/or audio headphones (and equivalents, as provided by statute). It could be both or
`either, and any future attempt by Garmin to argue that Philips’s construction, if adopted,
`requires a display in order to avoid infringement by certain products would be futile.
`’007 Patent: “means for suspending and resuming operation of said
`C.
`means for computing when a speed of the athlete falls below a predetermined
`threshold” (Claim 7)
`
`Philips’s Proposal
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`
`a processor (and equivalents thereof) that suspends said
`computing when a speed of the athlete is below a
`predetermined threshold and resumes said computing when a
`speed of the athlete is not below said predetermined threshold
`
`Indefinite
`
`Garmin does not dispute that the claim should be construed as Philips proposes, such
`that the claimed function should read “suspends said computing when a speed of the athlete
`is below a predetermined threshold and resume said computing when a speed of the athlete
`is not below said predetermined threshold.” Since the function must be construed before
`evaluating structure and indefiniteness, Philips’s proposal should be adopted.
`Meanwhile, the entirety of Garmin’s indefiniteness argument is that the specification
`mentions a “smart algorithm.” (See Dkt. 75, at 6). Yet again Garmin ignores the
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:2304
`
`
`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
`
`
`requirement that structural support must correspond to the claimed function.4 As
`explained in Philips’s opening brief, the recited function does not require a “smart
`algorithm” that makes a determination based on multiple input parameters. (See Dkt. 77,
`at 10-11.) Rather, claim 7 recited a dumb one: “suspending and resuming operation of
`said means for computing when a speed of the athlete falls below a predetermined
`threshold.” Indeed, because the claim itself recites the entirety of the required algorithm,
`the Court need not further look to the specification for more support.5
`’007 Patent: “means for exchanging GPS route waypoints via said
`D.
`Internet web site” (Claim 25)
`Philips’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`However, if construed Philips proposes: “an Internet
`web site [structure] (and equivalents thereof) that
`exchanges GPS route waypoints [function]”
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`Indefinite
`
`The parties do not dispute the function (See Dkt. 75, at 6-7), but Garmin argues that
`the term is indefinite for lack of structure. However, the requisite structure is recited in
`the claim itself: an Internet website. See Typemock, 2018 WL 4189692, at *8; Gemalto
`S.A., 2012 WL 2505745, at *23-24; Signal IP, 2015 WL 5768344, at *40. This Internet
`website for exchanging GPS route waypoints is also disclosed and discussed in the
`specification as well. (See Dkt. 77-2, at 9:52-62.)
`No algorithm is required. The claimed function is simply “exchanging GPS
`waypoints,” which is not some form of conclusory computational step requiring
`algorithmic support, nor is the supporting structure a generic processor or computer—it’s
`specifically an Internet website. It goes without saying that internet websites are
`specifically designed to exchange information. Even assuming, arguendo, that the recited
`function is a computational step, and an Internet website was merely a generic computer—
`
`
`4 See Chiuminatta, 145 F.3d at 1308-09; Asyst Tech., 268 F.3d at 1370.
`5 See Typemock, 2018 WL 4189692, at *8; Gemalto S.A., 2012 WL 2505745, at *23-24;
`Signal IP, 2015 WL 5768344, at *40.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PHILIPS’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 80 Filed 07/09/20 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:2305
`
`
`no algorithm is required under In re Katz. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
`Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “it was not necessary to
`disclose more structure than the general purpose processor,” i.e. an algorithm, where
`function was directed to the generic steps of “processing, receiving, and storing”
`information.) Here, as in Katz, “exchanging” information is coextensive with the recited
`structure of an Internet website. Exchanging information is simply what a website does
`much like how a processor “processes, receives, and stores” information.
`’233 Patent: “governing information transmitted between the first
`E.
`personal device and the second device” (Claim 1)
`
`Philips’s Proposal
`
`controlling the transmission of information between
`the first personal device and the second device
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Garmin attempts to supplant what one of ordinary skill would understand
`“governing” to mean with dictionary definitions of the term that are focused on the
`sovereign authority of kings and policymakers—rather than the more applicable
`definition that confirms that the term is focused on controlling the transmission of
`information. Garmin’s argument relies exclusively on Merriam-Webster’s first definition
`of “govern”—which is a poor fit with the technology and claims at issue:
`a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over
`especially : to control and direct the making and
`administration of policy in
`// The c