UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-750
`
`
`
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS’
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
`OF THE INITIAL DETERMINATION
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lynn I. Levine, Director
`Anne Goalwin, Supervisory Attorney
`Lisa M. Kattan, Investigative Attorney
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`202.205.2058 (Phone)
`202.205.2158 (Facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`February 7, 2012
`Public Version filed March 21, 2012
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................. ..
`
`1
`
`11. Legal Standards ...................................................................................................... .. 2
`
`III.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 .................................................................................... .. 4
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................ .. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” ................................................................ 4
`
`“a plurality of touch-sensing electrodes arranged on the substrate” .............. .. 6
`
`B.
`
`Contingent Petition for Review of Validity Determination ............................... .. 7
`
`C.
`
`Review of Infringement Determination .......................................................... .. 7
`
`D.
`
`Domestic Industry ............................................................................................ .. 12
`
`IV.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 .................................................................................. .. 12
`
`A.
`
`Validity ............................................................................................................. .. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Anticipation by the Perski Patent ................................................................. .. 12
`
`Anticipation by Smartskin ............................................................................ .. 17
`
`Obvious in Light of Smartskin and Rekimoto ......................... .§ ..................... 19
`
`B.
`
`Infiingement ..................................................................................................... .. 23
`
`Literal Infringement of Claim 1 Based on the “each of the
`1.
`second conductive lines being opcratively coupled to capacitive monitoring
`circuitry” Limitation ............................................................................................... .. 24
`
`2.
`Literal Infringement of Claim 4 .................................................................... .. 25
`3.
`Literal Infringement of Claim 1 by the— ............. 28
`
`Literal Infrin ement of Claim 10by_ .................................................................................... 314.
`
`C.
`
`Domestic Industry .............................................................................................. 32
`
`V. U.S. Patent No. 5,379,430 ..................................................................................... .. 33
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... .. 33
`
`Validity ............................................................................................................. .. 34
`
`Bondy............................................................................................................ .. 34
`
`Malone .......................................................................................................... .. 35
`
`lndefiniteness ................................................................................................ .. 37
`
`C.
`
`Infringement ..................................................................................................... .. 39
`
`Infringement of (c) “retuming hardware or software components
`1.
`meeting the target hardware or software components search criteria.” .................... 39
`
`

`
`iii
`
`Infringement of (d) “adding support for the hardware and software
`2.
`components to the operating system without rebooting the operating system.” ..... .. 40
`
`Contingent Review of Infringement of (a) “specifying a target hardware or
`3.
`software component search criteria including one or more properties.” ................ .. 41
`
`Infringement under the Commission’s Decision in
`4.
`Image Processing Systems (337-TA-724) .............................................................. .. 41
`
`Contingent Petition for Review of the Domestic Industry
`D.
`Determination under Apple’s Construction of “properties” ....................................... .. 44
`
`Contingent Petition for Review of the Validity Determination
`E.
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 under Apple’s Construction of “properties” .......................... .. 45
`
`F. Apple’s Standing to Assert the ‘430 Patent and Motorola’s Licensing Defense... 45
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................... .. 47
`
`

`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................... .. 20
`Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Roher, Inc., 326 F.3d 1226 (Fed.Cir. 2003)
`....................................................................................................................................... .. 5
`
`Carborundum Co. v. Molten Equip. Innovations, Inc., 72 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 1995).... .. 42
`Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............. .. 18
`Certain Acid- Washed Denim Garments and Accessories, Inv. No. 337-TA-324,
`Commission Opinion (Nov. 1992) .................................................................................. 3
`Certain Bearings and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-469, Opinion USITC Pub.
`3736 (Dec. 2004) .......................................................................................................... .. 3
`Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof and
`Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724, Comm’n Op. (Pub. Version) (Dec. 21,
`2011) ....................................................................................................................... .. 1, 41
`Certain Flash Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-3 82,
`Commission Op. USITC Pub. 3046 (July 1997) .......................................................... .. 3
`Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory
`Controllers And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-661, ID (Jan. 22, 2010)
`..................................................................................................................................... .. 43
`
`Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................. 18
`Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................................... 42
`Exxon Research and Eng ’g v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................... 38
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 344 F .3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003)10
`Franks Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int ’I, Inc., 389 F .3d 1370 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................................................ 9
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-ILLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................... 37
`Hazani v. U.S. Int ’l Trade Comm ‘n, 126 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................ 4
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek .Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................... 18
`Hines v. Secretary ofthe Dept. ofHealth and Humans Services, 940 F.2d 1518 (Fed. Cir.
`1991) ............................................................................................................................. .. 2
`Honeywell, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......... .. 10
`JVW Enterprises v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F .3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................ 2
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). ...................................................... .. 22
`Lucent, Tech., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 530 F .3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................. 43
`Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ....................... 43
`North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............. 5, 38
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................... 23
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................... 6
`Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) ............................................................................................................................. .. 6
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................. .. 34
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................... 18, 21
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................... .. 18
`
`

`
`See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Yarn and Products Containing Same, Inv. No.
`337-TA-457, Commission Op. USITC Pub. 3550 (Oct. 2002) .................................... .. 3
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .... .. 20
`Typhoon Touch Tech, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................... .. 35
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................. .. 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................... .. 19
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................... .. 19
`35 U.S.C. §112 .......................................................................................................... .. 37, 45
`
`Rules
`
`Commission Rule 2l0.43(d)(2) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`Regulations
`19 C.F.R. §210.43(b)(l)................................................................................................... .. 2
`19 C.F.R. § 2l0.43(d)(2) ................................................................................................... .. 2
`19 C.F.R. §210.45(c).......................................................................................................... 3
`
`

`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Complainant’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Complainant’s Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainant’s Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainant’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainant’s Petition for Review
`
`Complainant’s Exhibit
`
`Deposition
`
`Joint Exhibit
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondent’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondent’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Respondent’s Petition for Review
`
`Respondent’s Exhibit
`
`OUII‘s Post-Hearing Brief
`
`OUII’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Transcript of Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearing
`
`CDX
`
`CPHB
`
`CPreHB
`
`CRPI-IB
`
`CPR
`
`CX
`
`Dep.
`
`JX
`
`PTO
`
`RPHB
`
`RRPHB
`
`RDX
`
`RPR
`
`RX
`
`SPHB
`
`SRPHB
`
`Tr.
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMNIISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-750
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS’
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
`OF THE INI'I‘IAL DETERMINATION
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) responds to Complainant
`
`Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) petition for review and Respondent Motorola Mobility Inc.’s
`
`(“Motorola”) contingent petition for review of the Final Initial Determination (“ID”),
`
`dated January 13, 2012, finding no violation of Section 337 in this investigation.‘
`
`Between the two parties, review is sought of nearly every claim construction, validity,
`
`infringement, and domestic industry determination in the ID relating to U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,812,828 (“the ’828 patent”), 7,663,607 (“the ’607 patent”) and
`
`5,379,430 (“the ’43O patent”) (collectively the “asserted patents”).
`
`As detailed in this brief, OUII believes that with one limited exception, in light of
`
`the Commission’s recent decision in Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing
`
`Systems, Components Thereof and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724, Comm’n
`
`Op. (Dec. 21, 2011), the parties have not presented any basis for review of the ID.
`
`'
`
`OUH did not petition for review of the ID.
`
`

`
`Specifically, OUII does not believe the ALJ erred in: (1) finding the ‘828 patent
`
`valid and not infringed; (2) finding the ‘607 patent invalid and infringed; (3) finding the
`
`‘430 patent invalid; and (4) finding a domestic industry exists for each asserted patent.
`
`However, in light of the Commission’s decision in Image Processing Systems, OUII
`
`respectfully submits that Motorola’s petition for review of the initial determination
`
`regarding infringement of the ‘430 patent should be granted for the limited purpose of
`
`determining indirect infringement of a method patent.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.43(b), a petition for review shall specify one or
`
`more of the following grounds upon which review is sought:
`
`(i) that a finding or conclusion of material fact is clearly erroneous;
`(ii) that a legal conclusion is erroneous, without goveming precedent, rule or
`law, or constitutes an abuse of discretion; or
`(iii) that the determination is one affecting Commission policy.
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.43(b)(1). Commission Rule 2l0.43(d)(2) provides that the Commission
`
`will grant a petition and order review “if it appears that an error or abuse of the type
`
`described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is present or if the petition raises a policy
`
`matter connected with the initial determination, which the Commission thinks it
`
`necessary or appropriate to address.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(d)(2). However, “credibility
`
`determinations by the trial judge ‘can virtually never be clear error.”’ See JVW
`
`Enterprises v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005); accord
`
`Hines v. Secretary ofthe Dept. ofHealth and Humans Services, 940 F.2d 1518, 1527
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“arguments as to the weighing of evidence, particularly where Pnn
`
`witness credibility is involved, do not demonstrate reversible error.”)
`
`

`
`The Commission reviews an initial determination under a de novo standard. See
`
`Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Yarn and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-457, Comm’n Op. at 9, USITC Pub. 3550 (Oct. 2002). “Once the Commission takes
`
`up an initial determination for review, the Commission has ‘all the powers which it
`
`would have in making the initial determination,’ except where the issues are limited on
`
`notice or by rule.” Certain Flash Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA—382, Comm’n Op. at 14, USITC Pub. 3046 (July 1997), quoting Certain
`
`Acid- Washed Denim Garments and Accessories, Inv. No. 33 7-TA—324, Commission
`
`Opinion at 5 (Nov. 1992).
`
`Commission practice in this respect is consistent with the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act. See Certain Bearings and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-469,
`
`Comm’n Op. at 6, USITC Pub. 3736 (Dec. 2004). Thus, when reviewing, “the
`Commission may affirm, reverse, modify, set aside or remand for further proceedings, in
`
`whole or in part, the initial determination of the administrative lawjudge. The
`
`Commission may also make any findings or conclusions that in itsjudgment are proper
`
`based on the record in the proceeding.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.45(c).2
`
`2 The procedural history of this investigation is set forth in OUII’s post—hearing brief and
`the ID. See SPHB at 1-2 and ID at 1-2.
`
`

`
`III.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`1.
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse”
`
`The ALJ construed the phrase “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” to mean
`
`“performing a mathematical process where by an ellipse is actually fitted to the data
`
`consisting of one or more pixel groups and from that ellipse various parameters can be
`
`calculated.” See ID at 30. Apple has petitioned for review of this construction. See
`
`CPR at 8-17. Apple argues that the ALJ erred because the ’828 patent specification does
`
`not describe a step where “an ellipse is actually fitted” and “from that ellipse various
`
`parameters can be calculated.” See id. at 9. OUII submits that, while the ALJ adopted a
`
`construction that was not identical to that proposed by any party, no error was committed
`
`and the construction is supported by the evidence that was presented at trial.
`
`Apple argues that the ALJ erred in failing to recognize that the specification
`
`discloses that “the ellipse fitting procedure is one and the same with the calculation of
`
`ellipse parameters.” See CPR at 9. OUII disagrees. First, Apple did not argue before the
`
`ALJ that the ellipse fitting procedure is the same as the calculation of ellipse parameters,
`
`but rather that the “results of an ellipse fitting process are numerical parameters that
`
`describe an ellipse ...” See ID at 23 and CPHB at 27. Thus, this argument does not
`
`warrant Commission review. Accord Hazani v. U.S. Im"l Trade Comm ’n, 126 F.3d 1473
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“We find no legal error in the administrative law judge’s determination
`
`that the arguments that Hazani raised for the first time on reconsideration were untimely
`
`and could properly be rejected on that ground alone.”).
`
`

`
`Second, this new argument is not supported by the evidence. As the ALJ
`
`correctly noted, Apple’s argument during the hearing tumed the plain claim language “on
`
`its head” by reversing the process to require “[a] parameter, generated in any way
`
`possible that could be used ex post to generate an ellipse that could be fitted over the
`
`pixel groups.” See ID at 28. Apple’s current argument, which collapses ellipse fitting
`
`and parameter generation into the same event, is wrong for the same reason—namely that
`
`it does not require a distinct ellipse-fitting step.
`
`In OUII’s view, the ALJ committed no error in determining that the plain claim
`
`language, the specification, the prosecution history, the credible portion of the inventor
`
`testimony, and the extrinsic evidence all support the conclusion that an actual ellipse be
`
`fit to the pixel group data. See ID at 27-30. The ALJ did not err in discounting self-
`
`serving inventor testimony, nor the testimony offered by an expert that was not supported
`
`by the intrinsic evidence—-nor is it necessary for the Commission to re-visit the
`
`credibility determinations made by the ALJ. See North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am.
`
`Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Where meaning of [a] claim term is
`
`clear from the specification and prosecution history, the inventor’s self-servingpost-hoc
`
`opinion testimony on the legal question [ ] whether it should have a different meaning
`
`was of little if any significance”) (citation omitted); Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Inc. v. Rhone
`
`Poulenc Roher, Inc., 326 F.3d 1226, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (reviewing factual findings for
`
`clear error does not include making factual determinations in the first instance as a
`
`substitute for “the district court's careful and thorough fact finding”).
`
`

`
`2.
`
`“a plurality of touch-sensing
`electrodes arranged on the substrate”
`
`The ALJ construed the phrase “a plurality of touch-sensing electrodes arranged on
`
`the substrate” to mean “multiple electrical elements arranged on the substrate that can
`
`sense the distance or pressure between the electrical elements and objects on or near the
`
`electrical elements.” See ID at 36. Motorola has petitioned for review of this
`
`construction. See MPR 9-15.
`
`The ALJ determined that Motorola’s proposed construction is incorrect because it
`
`attempts to read a self-capacitance limitation from the specification into the claim. See
`
`ID at 36-40. Now, Motorola re-argues the evidence that was considered by the ALJ, but
`
`does not show any error. The ALJ applied the correct legal standard for determining the
`
`weight to be given to the specification. See ID at 10-12, citing, inter alia, Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, the ALJ considered Retractable
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., a case not presented to the ALJ by
`
`Motorola, but potentially helpful to its construction, before ultimately concluding that
`
`while the specification does refer to the invention as using self-capacitance, it does not
`
`limit the invention to self-capacitance. See ID at 39, citing Retractable Technologies,
`
`Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Nor did the ALJ commit a clear factual error. Indeed, the ALJ’s statement that
`
`the issue was “a close call” indicates that the ALJ gave all due weight to the evidence
`
`presented by Motorola. See ID at 39. The ALJ acknowledged the evidence presented by
`
`Motorola, which showed the disclosure of self-capacitance embodiments in the
`
`specification, but determined that in light of other disclosures of mutual capacitance in
`
`

`
`the same specification, it was not proper to limit the plain language of the claims to self-
`
`capacitance. See id. Motorola’s petition merely repeats the evidence presented to the
`
`ALJ, and argues that a different conclusion should have been reached.
`
`B.
`
`Contingent Petition for Review of Validity Determination
`
`The ALJ determined that the ‘828 patent was not shown to be invalid. See ID at
`
`139-41. If the Commission determines to review the claim construction of
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” in the ‘828 patent, Motorola seeks contingent review
`
`of the ALJ’s determination that Claims 1 and 10 of the ‘828 patent are not invalid under
`
`Apple’s claim construction in light of the Bisset reference. See RPR at 16-20. In OUII’s
`
`view, as explained above, the ALJ’s claim construction is legally correct and supported
`
`by the evidence. Thus the Commission should determine not to review the validity of
`
`the ’828 patent under Apple’s incorrect construction, and Motorola’s contingent petition
`
`for review should be denied.
`
`C.
`
`Review of Infringement Determination
`
`The ALJ determined that the ‘828 patent is not infringed literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. See ID at 78-107. Moreover, the ALJ determined that, even if
`
`the ‘828 patent were infi'inged by equivalents, prosecution history estoppel bars Apple
`
`from obtaining ajudgment against accused products that use an equivalent of
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse.” See id. at 105-07. Apple has petitioned for review
`
`of these determinations, and argues that all of the accused products infringe under
`
`Apple’s proposed construction of “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” and that at least
`
`the Motorola Xoom product (the “Xoom”) infringes under the construction adopted by
`
`the ALJ. See CPR at 17. Because, as described above, OUII is of the view that Apple’s
`
`

`
`construction is not correct, OUII submits that it is not necessary for the Commission to
`
`consider whether the accused products infringe under Apple’s construction.
`
`Likewise, the Commission need not review the ALJ’s conclusion that the
`
`Motorola Xoom does not infringe under the construction adopted in the ID. Apple’s
`
`petition for review argues that processe infringe
`
`because they mathematically fit an ellipse under the ALJ’s construction of
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse.” See CPR at 27. Apple argues that this point has not
`
`been fully briefed by Apple until now because it was not critical under Apple’s
`
`construction. See id. at 26.3
`
`OUII disagrees. A large amount of evidence was made of record by both parties
`
`conceming the functionality of the— including trial testimony by two
`
`third partywitnesses,
`
` s well as Apple’s own expert, Dr.
`
`Balakrishnan. See ID at 85, citing Apple’s post-hearing brief and record evidence cited
`
`therein. Apple extensively briefed the functionality of the_as it
`
`related to the alleged infringement of the Xoom. See CPHB at 56, S8, and 61. The ALJ
`
`explicitly foundthat
`
`Apple argues that the ALJ erred by not explicitly addressing the method that the
`
` See CPR at 28. Even ifthis
`
`were true, in OUII’s view it is irrelevant, and thus not error, because the evidence showed
`
`3 The ALJ found that Apple appeared to have previously conceded the argument that the
`_itself mathematically fits an ellipse. See ID at 93. Apple should not be
`permitted to recapture that argument now, but OUII addresses the issue as it is presented
`in Apple’s petition.
`
`

`
`that, regardless ofho_is computed, it is not an ellipse parameter. See ID
`
`at 90,citin
`
`In fact, Apple’s petition all but concedes that the Xoom does not literally infringe
`
`under the ALJ’s construction of “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” by stating “[t]he
`
`processes used to compute theseparameter
`
`” See CPR
`
`at 27. But similarity is not the legal standard for literal infringement. Franks Casing
`
`Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int ’I, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“Literal infringement requires that each and every limitation set forth in a claim
`
`appear in an accused product.”). Thus, OUII submits that Apple’s petition for review of
`
`the ALJ’s determination that the Xoom does not literally infringe the ‘828 patent should
`
`be denied.
`
`Nor has Apple shown that the ALJ erred by determining that the Xoom does not
`
`infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. See ID at 101-04. Apple’s sole argument is
`
`that the ALJ erred by relying upon the wrong evidence, specifically Apple asserts that the
`
`ID quotes the wrong sentence from Apple’s expert’s Witness Statement at
`
`Question/Answer 535. See CPR at 30.
`
`The ALJ correctly noted that it is Apple’s burden to establish infringement by the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. See ID at 105. The ALJ correctly noted that the sole evidence
`
`Apple presented was one sentence in the witness statement of its expert Dr. Balakrishnan
`
`at Question/Answer 535. See id. The ALJ determined that a one sentence expert opinion
`
`

`
`10
`
`amounted to an “absence of any meaningful testimony,” and was “inadequate” to meet
`
`Apple’s burden of proof. See id. Apple is correct—the ID quotes the sentence regarding
`
`the product hen it should have quoted the previous
`
`sentence regardingproducts See ID at 105.
`
`But the previous sentence is no more robust than the one quoted in the ID. The ALJ’s
`
`determination that such a scant opinion fails to meet Apple’s burden of proof is not clear
`
`error.
`
`Even if Apple had met is burden of proof, Apple has not shown that the ALJ
`
`erred in detennining that it is barred by prosecution history estoppel from seeking a
`
`determination of infringement by equivalents of “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse.”
`
`See CPR at 25-26. The ALJ noted that Motorola set forth evidence that the addition of
`
`the word “mathematically” to the phrase “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” during
`
`prosecution of the ‘828 patent estops Apple from expanding the scope of the claim to
`
`non-mathematical ellipse-fitting. See ID at 105-07. The ALJ considered this evidence
`
`under the correct legal standard. See id., citing Honeywell, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand
`
`Corp., 370 F.3d 1131, 1141-44 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku
`
`Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The ALJ found Apple did not
`
`provide any rebuttal evidence, although it had the burden to do so. See ID at 107. Apple
`
`does not dispute this conclusion. See CPR at 25-26. Thus, OUII submits the ALJ’s
`
`determination that Apple is barred from seeking a determination of infringement by
`
`equivalents is correct.
`
`Finally, Apple argues the ALJ erred by not addressing the infringement of Claim
`
`24 (and subsequently dependent claims 25, 26, and 29) in the ID. See CPR at 32.
`
`

`
`ll
`
`Apple’s argument is not meritorious. The Initial Detennination and Order states “no
`
`violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred in the
`
`importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United
`
`States after importation of certain mobile devices and related software that infringe one
`
`or more of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 24-26, and 29 [of] U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828.” See ID at
`
`205 (emphasis added).4
`
`The ALJ construed the disputed terms in Claims 24, including the only one-—
`
`“means for fitting an ellipse to at least one of the pixel groups”—that Apple now disputes
`
`infringement of. See ID at 31-40, 46-47. Apple does not petition for review of these
`
`constructions. Apple only petitions for review of whether the Xoom infringes Claim 24
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. See CPR at 32-33.
`
`First, the ALJ determined that even if Apple did meet its evidentiary burden of
`
`showing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, Apple is barred by prosecution
`
`history estoppel from asserting an equivalent scope of claim 24. See ID at 106
`
`(“Motorola further argues that remarks to the PTO regarding the scope of the ellipse-
`
`fitting limitations of claims 1, 10, and 24 created argument estoppel for these limitations.
`
`...The ALJ agrees with Motorola.”).
`
`Second, Apple’s entire case of infringement of Claim 24 by the Xoom under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents was based on a single sentence in its expert’s witness statement.
`
`See CX-201C, Balakrishnan Statement, at Q/A 578.5 This one sentence expert opinion is
`
`4 Claims 25, 26, and 29 depend from Claim 24.
`
`5 In its petition, Apple also cites to the Balakrishnan Witness Statement at Q/A 575-77,
`but these questions relate to literal infringement of the means for fitting an ellipse
`limitation, not infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. See CPR at 33.
`
`

`
`12
`
`nearly identical to the one the ALJ properly dismissed as an “absence of any meaningful
`
`testimony,” and “inadequate” to meet Apple’s burden of proof. See ID at 105. For these
`
`reasons, OUII submits that the ID contains no conclusion of material fact that is clearly
`
`erroneous regarding the noninfringement of Claim 24 of the ‘828 patent by the Xoom.
`
`D.
`
`Domestic Industry
`
`The ALJ determined that Apple has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic
`
`industry requirement for the ‘828 patent because the iPhone 4 practices claim 10 of the
`
`patent. See ID at 139-41. If the Commission determines to review the claim construction
`
`of “a plurality of touch-sensing electrodes arranged on the substrate” as Motorola
`
`requests, Motorola also seeks contingent review of the ALJ’s determination that Claim 10
`
`of the ‘828 patent is practiced by the iPhone 4. See RPR at 15. In OUII’s view, as
`
`explained above, the ALJ’s claim construction is legally correct and supported by the
`
`evidence. Thus the Commission should determine not to review the validity of the ’828
`
`patent under Motorola’s incorrect construction, and Motorola’s contingent petition for
`
`review should be denied.
`
`IV.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
`
`A.
`
`Validity
`
`1.
`
`Anticipation by the Perski Patent
`
`The ALJ determined that the asserted claims of the ‘607 patent were anticipated
`
`by U.S. Patent No. 7,372,455 issued to Perski and Morag (the “Perski patent”). See ID at
`
`141-46. Apple petitions for review of this determination. See CPR at 37-50. Apple
`
`argues that Perski is not entitled to the earlier filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/446,808 (the “Perski application”). See CPR at 39-42. Apple also
`
`

`
`13
`
`argues that the ALJ erred in finding the only limitations Apple did not concede—the
`
`multi-touch 1imitations—were disclosed by the Perski patent. See ID at 14; see also CPR
`
`at 43-50. Apple’s petition merely re-litigates the facts presented to the ALJ.
`
`a. Perski Priority Date
`
`Apple alleges the ALJ made several errors in determining that the Perski patent
`
`was entitled to the filing date of the Perski application, and thus that the Perksi patent was
`
`prior art to the ‘607 patent. See ID at 141-42. OUII disagrees. First, Apple argues that
`
`the Perksi patent was not entitled to the filing date of the Perski application because their
`
`disclosures were not “verbatim.” See CPR at 39-40, see also CPHB at 134. The ALJ
`
`considered and rejected this a