`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 166 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS
`
`Leave to file granted on March 11, 2021
`(Dkt. 165)
`
`
`
`FITBIT’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION
`Defendant Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) submits this notice of supplemental authority on claim
`
`construction (see Dkt. Nos. 72, 73, 77, 78, 83, 84, 87, 98, 102, 111).
`
`On March 2, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Rain Computing,
`
`Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2020-1646, -- F.3d --, 2021 WL 786361 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2,
`
`2021), reversing a judgment of no indefiniteness by the U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Massachusetts. This opinion is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Relevant to at least the parties’ Markman disputes with respect to the “means for
`
`computing” limitation recited by U.S. Patent No. 6,013,007, the Federal Circuit determined claims
`
`reciting a means-plus-function limitation that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 to be invalid as
`
`indefinite because the structure corresponding to the claimed function was a general purpose
`
`processor and the specification did not disclose an algorithm to perform the claimed function.
`
`Excerpts of the relevant portion of the Federal Circuit opinion follow:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 166 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`The district court found that the structural examples linked to the function
`of the “user identification module” are all “computer-readable media or
`storage device[s].” Rain Computing, 2020 WL 708125, at *5 . . . . The
`district court erred, however, in concluding that the disclosure of computer-
`readable media or storage devices provided sufficient structure for the
`“control access” function. Id. These computer-readable media or storage
`devices
`amount
`to
`nothing
`more
`than
`a
`general-
`purpose computer. . . . Rather,
`some
`special programming, i.e.,
`an
`algorithm, would be required to control access to the software application
`packages. Rain even agrees that the “user identification module” should
`include software algorithms. See, e.g., Appellant's Resp. & Reply Br. at 22,
`(“the module would ... be configured to ... respond to requests for
`information (using common software algorithms)”), id. at 27 n.17 (“the user
`identification module should include software implementations”). And the
`inventor agreed that “there are certain algorithms out there” such as “open
`source software that can implement” the user identification module. J.A.
`297–99. Under these circumstances, where a general purposes computer is
`the corresponding structure and it is not capable of performing the
`controlling access function absent specialized software, an algorithm is
`required.
`
`Nothing in the claim language or the written description provides an
`algorithm to achieve the “control access” function of the “user identification
`module.” When asked at oral argument to identify an algorithm in the
`written description, Rain could not do so. Oral argument at 32:54–
`34:40, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20-
`1646_02022021.mp3. Without an algorithm to achieve the “control access”
`function, we hold the term “user identification module” lacks sufficient
`structure and renders the claims indefinite.
`
`Rain Computing, 2021 WL 786361, at *4.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 166 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`Dated: March 11, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.
`
`By Its Attorneys,
`
`/s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`Chad Peterman
`chadpeterman@paulhastings.com
`Dave Beckwith
`davidbeckwith@paulhastings.com
`David Okano
`davidokano@paulhastings.com
`Radhesh Devendran
`radheshdevendran@paulhastings.com
`Berkeley Fife
`berkeleyfife@paulhastings.com
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`1(650) 320-1900
`
`Gregory F. Corbett (BBO # 646394)
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 646-8000
`Facsimile: (617) 646-8646
`E-mail: gcorbett@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 166 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a true copy of the above document was served on the attorney of record for
`
`each party via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of this filing (NEF) to
`
`all registered participants, and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as nonregistered
`
`participants.
`
`Dated: March 11, 2021
`
`By:
`/s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky (Pro Hac Vice)
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`