Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 107 PageID #: 3755
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 19-cv-196-CFC-SRF
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ETHANOL BOOSTING SYSTEMS,
`LLC and THE MASSACHUSETTS
`INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Dated: December 6, 2019
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`(302) 777-0301 (Fax)
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Matthew R. Berry
`Andres C. Healy
`Steven M. Seigel
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`Telephone: (206) 516-3880
`Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
`
`
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Michael J. Flynn (#5333)
`Taylor M. Haga (#6549)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
`TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`rsmith@mnat.com
`mflynn@mnat.com
`thaga@mnat.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael S. Connor
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street
`Charlotte, NC 28280
`(704) 444-1022
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 1
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 2 of 107 PageID #: 3756
`
`mberry@susmangodfrey.com
`ahealy@susmangodfrey.com
`sseigel@susmangodfrey.com
`
`William D. O’Connell
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
`New York, New York 10019-6023
`Telephone: (212) 336-8330
`Facsimile: (212) 336-8341
`boconnell@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`Natalie C. Clayton
`Andrew J. Ligotti
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 210-9573
`
`Brian Hill
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`950 F Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 239-3733
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 2
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 3 of 107 PageID #: 3757
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. Background ........................................................................................................ 2
`A. Plaintiffs’ Opening Statement .................................................................... 2
`1. The Patents ............................................................................................ 2
`2. Common Principles/Concepts ............................................................... 5
`B. Ford’s Answering Statement ...................................................................... 7
`1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 7
`2. Technology Background ....................................................................... 9
`C. Plaintiffs’ Reply Statement ...................................................................... 13
`D. Ford’s Sur-Reply Statement ..................................................................... 14
`II. Agreed-Upon Constructions ............................................................................. 15
`III. Disputed Claim Constructions ......................................................................... 16
`A. “torque” .................................................................................................... 16
`1. Plaintiffs’ Opening Position ................................................................ 17
`2. Defendant’s Answering Position ......................................................... 19
`3. Plaintiffs’ Reply Position .................................................................... 22
`4. Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position .......................................................... 23
`B. “torque range” / “range of torque” ........................................................... 24
`1. Plaintiffs’ Opening Position ................................................................ 24
`2. Defendant’s Answering Position ......................................................... 26
`3. Plaintiffs’ Reply Position .................................................................... 27
`4. Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position .......................................................... 29
`C. “above a selected torque value the ratio of fuel that is directly injected to
`fuel that is port injected increases” ........................................................... 29
`1. Plaintiffs’ Opening Position ................................................................ 29
`2. Defendant’s Answering Position ......................................................... 32
`
`i
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 3
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 4 of 107 PageID #: 3758
`
`3. Plaintiffs’ Reply Position .................................................................... 38
`4. Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position .......................................................... 42
`D. “decreases with decreasing torque” .......................................................... 45
`1. Plaintiffs’ Opening Position ................................................................ 45
`2. Defendant’s Answering Position ......................................................... 46
`3. Plaintiffs’ Reply Position .................................................................... 48
`4. Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position .......................................................... 49
`E. “fuel that is directly injected” / “directly injected fuel” / “fuel provided
`by direct injection” / “fueling that is provided by the first fueling system”
`/ “fueling from the first fueling system” / “fuel provided by the first
`fueling system” / “fuel is provided by a first fueling system” ................. 49
`1. Plaintiffs’ Opening Position ................................................................ 49
`2. Defendant’s Answering Position ......................................................... 52
`3. Plaintiffs’ Reply Position .................................................................... 59
`4. Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position .......................................................... 66
`F. “highest loads” ......................................................................................... 69
`1. Plaintiffs’ Opening Position ................................................................ 69
`2. Defendant’s Answering Position ......................................................... 71
`3. Plaintiffs’ Reply Position .................................................................... 72
`4. Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position .......................................................... 74
`G. “closed loop control that utilizes a sensor that detects knock” / “input
`from the knock sensor is utilized in a closed loop control system that
`controls” / “where closed loop control with a knock detector is used” ... 74
`1. Plaintiffs’ Opening Position ................................................................ 75
`2. Defendant’s Answering Position ......................................................... 79
`3. Plaintiffs’ Reply Position .................................................................... 87
`4. Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position .......................................................... 94
`
`ii
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 4
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 5 of 107 PageID #: 3759
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 44, 69
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc.,
`801 F. Supp. 2d 465 (E.D. Va. 2011) ................................................................. 93
`Akeva L.L.C. v. Adidas-Salomon AG,
`208 F. App’x 861 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 96
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.,
`2019 WL 3891150 (D. Del. Aug. 19, 2019) ....................................................... 97
`Astrazeneca AB, et al. v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
`384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 54, 62, 85
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`809 F.3d 599 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 86, 97
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................ 31, 39, 77, 88
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 84
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 35
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 52
`Comput. Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 85
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................ 60, 62, 64
`
`iii
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 5
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 6 of 107 PageID #: 3760
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container
`Corp.,
`635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 61
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 44
`Endoheart AG v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.,
`2016 WL 1270127 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016) ................................................. 38, 86
`Hill-Rom, Inc. v. Ohmeda Med.,
`34 F. App’x 733 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 61
`Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 65
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 54, 62
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.,
`822 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 58
`i4i Ltd. P’Ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................................................passim
`Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 23
`In-Depth Test LLC v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.,
`2018 WL 5669165 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018) (Connolly, J.) ...........................passim
`Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 47
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2015 WL 1393386 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2015), aff’d sub nom. 748
`Fed. App’x 330 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 30
`IPC Sys., Inc. v. Cloud9 Techs. LLC,
`2018 WL 5342654 (D. Del. Oct. 29, 2018) (Connolly, J.) ................................. 26
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................ 30, 38, 45, 88
`
`iv
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 6
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 7 of 107 PageID #: 3761
`
`Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co.,
`203 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 97
`Microsoft Corp. v. Geotag, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1868125 (D. Del. May 3, 2013) ......................................................... 87
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 36, 41, 85
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 58
`Nazomi Comms., Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 63
`Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 85
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................. 27, 52, 94
`Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 65
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus.,
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 36
`Orbcomm, Inc. v. Calamp Corp.,
`2017 WL 376152 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2017) ........................................................ 86
`OSRAM GmbH v. ITC,
`505 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 69
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`2005 WL 6220101 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2005) ....................................... 21, 22, 23
`Perfect Curve, Inc. v. Hat World, Inc.,
`988 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D. Mass. 2013) ................................................................... 21
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................ 56, 81, 84, 86
`
`v
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 7
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 8 of 107 PageID #: 3762
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 86
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`904 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 46
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................... 61, 62
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 53
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`346 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 35, 42
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 36, 42, 57
`SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 43, 84
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 65
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 30, 45, 50
`TQ Delta, LLC v. 2WIRE, Inc.,
`2017 WL 6435334 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2017) ....................................................... 93
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 44, 54
`TRIC Tools, Inc. v. TT Techs., Inc.,
`2014 WL 2880028 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) .................................................... 61
`TriStrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`594 F. App’x 653 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 81
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 81, 85
`
`vi
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 8
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 9 of 107 PageID #: 3763
`
`U.S. Philips Corp. v. Iwasaki Elec. Co. Ltd.,
`505 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 28, 29
`Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
`208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 35
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 53, 62
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................ 36, 41, 81
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 87, 94
`Witness Sys. v. Nice Sys.,
`2006 WL 6210188 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 12, 2006) .................................................... 97
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 93
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................ 87, 93, 94
`
`
`vii
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 9
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 10 of 107 PageID #: 3764
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 16 of the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 17), Plaintiffs
`
`Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
`
`Defendant Ford Motor Company (collectively, “the Parties”) file this Joint Claim
`
`Construction Brief setting forth each side’s position on the seven groups of
`
`terms/phrases that Ford has identified for construction.
`
`The Parties also submit a separate Joint Appendix with text-searchable PDFs
`
`of each of the following documents:
`
`Exhibit Document Description
`1.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/991,774, dated November 18, 2004
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839 B2 (Cohn, et al.), dated December 6, 2011
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,255,519 B2 (Cohn, et al.), dated February 9, 2016
`4.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,810,166 B2 (Cohn, et al.), dated November 7, 2017
`5.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,138,826 B2 (Cohn, et al.), dated November 27, 2018
`6.
`Excerpts of the File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 10/991,774
`(’033 File History)
`Excerpts of the File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,810,166 B2 (’166 File
`History)
`Excerpts of Ford’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,069,839, IPR2019-01400 (’839 IPR Petition)
`Excerpts of Ford’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`9,810,166, IPR2019-01399 (’166 IPR Petition)
`10. Declaration of Dr. Gregory Shaver
`11.
`Article, Explained: Why Some Engines Have Both Port and
`Direct Injection
`Excerpt of Ford Website, 2020 Ford F-150 Truck
`Ford Performance Advertisement (also available at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEFlQSCLEIo)
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Gregory Shaver
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`12.
`13.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 10
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 11 of 107 PageID #: 3765
`
`Exhibit Document Description
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, IPR2019-01400 (’839 IPR
`15.
`Petition), Paper 7
`
`
`I.
`
`Background
`A. Plaintiffs’ Opening Statement
`1.
`The Patents
`Plaintiffs have asserted four patents in this action: U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`
`(’839), U.S. Patent No. 9,255,519 (’519), U.S. Patent No. 9,810,166 (’166), and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,138,826 (’826). Each of these patents continues from, and claims
`
`priority to, U.S. Patent Application No. 10/991,774 (the “Application”), which was
`
`filed November 18, 2004. Apart from the recitations concerning each patent’s chain
`
`of priority, each patent’s specification is identical to the original Application. As
`
`such, for the Court’s convenience, Plaintiffs cite to the Application (attached as
`
`Exhibit 1) rather than the individual specifications.
`
`The asserted patents are the brainchild of three remarkable men: Dr. Leslie
`
`Bromberg, Dr. Daniel Cohn, and Prof. John Heywood. Each has spent much of their
`
`lives working with and improving engines—including more than ten decades
`
`combined at MIT.
`
`Prof. Heywood, for example, was the Director of the Sloan Automotive
`
`Laboratory at MIT and literally wrote the textbook on the internal combustion
`
`engine. Since 1988, his Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals (“ICEF”)
`
`
`
`2
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 11
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 12 of 107 PageID #: 3766
`
`textbook has been used by engineers the world over as a primer on the operation of
`
`internal combustion engines like those to which the patents are directed. Dr.
`
`Bromberg and Dr. Cohn likewise are both internationally known for their work on
`
`improved engine technologies—each having received more than 80 granted patents.
`
`The asserted patents build on this experience. Each patent claims spark
`
`ignition internal combustion engines, and fuel management systems, that improve
`
`over the prior art by disclosing new combinations of two different fuel injection
`
`techniques: (1) port fuel injection (“PFI”), in which fuel is injected into an intake
`
`port, and (2) direct injection (“DI”), in which fuel is injected directly into the engine
`
`cylinder. Ex. 1 at 4:16-27, 6:5-8.
`
`An exemplary depiction of such a “dual injection” engine—including the
`
`location of such injectors—is shown below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 12
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 13 of 107 PageID #: 3767
`
`Ex. 11 at 1.
`
`As the specification common to each patent explains, the incorporation of
`
`such dual injection technology was groundbreaking. Among other benefits, it allows
`
`an engine to continue to benefit from the better “air/fuel mixing and combustion
`
`stability” associated with port fuel injection, while also reaping the benefit of a
`
`phenomenon known as “cylinder charge cooling.” Ex. 1 at 5:5-8, 5:23-27.
`
`The specification explains that “[d]irect injection of gasoline results in
`
`approximately a five octane number decrease in the octane number required by the
`
`engine” and a “30K drop in charge temperature.” Id. at 6:5-8. The cylinder charge
`
`cooling resulting from such direct injection allows an engine to better avoid “engine
`
`knock,” which is “the undesired detonation of fuel [that] can severely damage an
`
`engine.”1 Id. at 2:12-16.
`
`In addition, the patents go beyond describing new combinations of direct and
`
`port fuel injection. They also include embodiments that use closed and/or open loop
`
`control (described in more detail below) to dynamically vary when and how each
`
`fuel system is used. E.g., id. at 3:18-25, 4:16-27.
`
`
`1 As Ford has acknowledged, “knock” typically is detected by a “knock sensor [that]
`‘monitors structure-borne noise, which it transforms into an electrical signal suitable
`for transmission to the ECU [engine control unit].’” Ex. 8 (’839 IPR Petition) at 52.
`
`
`
`4
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 13
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 14 of 107 PageID #: 3768
`
`2.
`Common Principles/Concepts
`Three concepts are repeated throughout the patents. The first is the concept of
`
`direct and port fuel injection depicted above. The parties agree that direct injection
`
`means “direct injection of fuel into a cylinder” and port fuel injection means
`
`“injection of fuel into an intake port or intake manifold.” Joint Chart, D.I. 67 at 2-3.
`
`The second concept—“torque ranges”—is closely related. The terms first
`
`torque range and second torque range are used throughout the patents as a shorthand
`
`reference for which fueling system is being used. When direct injection is being
`
`used, the engine is in the first torque range; when direct injection is not being used,
`
`the engine is in the second torque range. See, e.g., Ex. 9 (’166 IPR Petition) at 3
`
`(“The terms ‘torque range,’ ‘range of torque,’ and ‘region of torque’ (‘torque range’)
`
`are used throughout the challenged claims to define at least a first torque range
`
`whereby an engine uses port fuel injection (‘PI’) and DI, and a second torque range
`
`where PI alone is used.” (emphases added)).
`
`Finally, the specification and asserted claims also contemplate various control
`
`systems and mechanisms, including various implementations of what is known as
`
`“closed loop control,” which the parties agree is a feedback-based control system.
`
`Joint Chart, D.I. 67 at 8-9. As Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Gregory Shaver explains, closed
`
`loop control involves monitoring a system (like an engine) for one or more
`
`controlled outputs and then relaying those outputs (i.e., feedback) back to the system,
`
`
`
`5
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 14
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 15 of 107 PageID #: 3769
`
`which uses them to affect the control actions it takes. Ex. 10 (Shaver Decl.) at ¶¶ 9-
`
`10. A simple example of such a closed-loop system (in this example, a knock-control
`
`system) is depicted below:
`
`The patents also contemplate more sophisticated embodiments, including
`
`those in which—as depicted below—multiple inputs may be received:
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 15
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 16 of 107 PageID #: 3770
`
`
`
`Cf. Ex. 3 at 7:53-57 (’519 Claim 5) (stating that “sensed information” can be
`
`received by “the fuel management system” and that “both the sensed information
`
`and information about knock are used to control the fuel that is introduced by the
`
`first fueling system”); id. at 8:24-26 (Claim 13).
`
`B. Ford’s Answering Statement
`1.
`Introduction
`The Patents-in-Suit are part of an extensive family of patent applications and
`
`issued patents that share a common specification with, and claim priority to, an
`
`original parent application: U.S. App. No. 10/991,774 (“the ’774 Application”),
`
`filed on Nov. 18, 2004. In the early years after filing the ’774 Application, the patent
`
`applicants, Plaintiffs Ethanol Boosting Solutions, LLC and the Massachusetts
`
`
`
`7
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 16
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 17 of 107 PageID #: 3771
`
`Institute of Technology (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “EBS”), pursued claims
`
`consistent with the specification: namely, an engine fueled by: (i) port injection of
`
`gasoline and (ii) direct injection of a different fuel containing an antiknock agent
`
`such as ethanol. Every claim of the first four patents that claimed priority to the ’774
`
`Application (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,314,033; 7,740,004; 7,762,233; and 7,971,572)
`
`explicitly recites separate fuels, including port injection of gasoline combined with
`
`direct injection of a separate fuel with an antiknock agent such as ethanol.
`
`Many years after filing the ’774 Application, EBS learned that using two
`
`different fuels was not commercially viable. At that point, EBS attempted to migrate
`
`the claims in successive patent applications away from the initial concept of using
`
`two separate fuels, to a different concept of using a single fuel (such as gasoline) in
`
`a dual injection system. Beginning with U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839 (“the ’839
`
`Patent”), filed on May 27, 2011, EBS attempted to abandon its original dual fuel,
`
`ethanol-based invention by including claims that EBS now asserts are broad enough
`
`to cover a single fuel, dual injection system—thus expanding the scope of its claims
`
`beyond what was initially disclosed. In this litigation, EBS asserts that the Patents-
`
`in-Suit cover port and direct injection of a single fuel. See, e.g., EBS Opening Brief
`
`at 2-3. EBS’s position is at odds with the disclosure of the Patents-in-Suit, which
`
`makes clear that the inventors’ alleged discovery only relates to direct injection of a
`
`
`
`8
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 17
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 18 of 107 PageID #: 3772
`
`fuel with an antiknock agent (e.g., ethanol), in combination with port injection of
`
`gasoline.
`
`Thus, a central dispute in this case is whether EBS should be held to the
`
`invention it disclosed in its ’774 Application and the specification of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit (direct injection of ethanol + port injection of gasoline), or whether the asserted
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit can more broadly cover an invention that the
`
`specification does not disclose (i.e., direct injection + port injection of gasoline
`
`alone). Because the claims should be read in the context of the specification, EBS
`
`should be held to the invention it disclosed, and the asserted claims should be
`
`construed accordingly.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Technology Background
`
`Overview of Terms and Technical Concepts
`i)
`Several technical concepts are important for understanding the disputes
`
`between the parties:
`
` Port Injection (“PI” or “PFI”): a fuel
`
`injector that sprays fuel into an engine’s
`
`intake ports, outside of the combustion
`
`chamber, so the fuel enters the combustion
`
`chamber through the intake valve as an air-
`
`fuel mixture. Port injection is generally
`
`
`
`9
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 18
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 19 of 107 PageID #: 3773
`
`cheaper because the fuel injectors are not exposed to the heat and
`
`pressure of the combustion chamber.
`
` Direct Injection (“DI”): a fuel injector that
`
`sprays
`
`fuel directly
`
`into
`
`an
`
`engine’s
`
`combustion chamber. Direct
`
`injection
`
`is
`
`capable of more precisely measuring the
`
`amount of fuel entering
`
`the combustion
`
`chamber, resulting
`
`in more control over
`
`combustion and generally greater efficiency.
`
`
`
`Dual Fuel: In fuel injection systems utilizing both port and direct
`
`injection, separate fuels are used for port injection and direct injection,
`
`respectively.
`
`
`
`Single Fuel: In fuel injection systems utilizing both port and direct
`
`injection, the same fuel is used for port injection and direct injection,
`
`respectively.
`
`
`
`Knock: “is the undesired detonation of fuel and can severely damage
`
`the engine.” Ex. 2 (’839 Patent) at 1:28-29. Knock is something to be
`
`avoided. Under normal conditions, the fuel in the combustion chamber
`
`detonates in a controlled manner, where fuel nearest to the spark plug
`
`detonates first. When heat or pressure in the combustion chamber is too
`
`
`
`10
`
`FORD Ex. 1049, page 19
` IPR2019-01400
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF Document 109 Filed 12/06/19 Page 20 of 107 PageID #: 3774
`
`high, that detonation may become uncontrolled, leading to a destructive
`
`“knocking” or “pinging” noise in the engine.
`
`
`
`Octane: a measure of a fuel’s ability to resist detonation. Higher octane
`
`numbers, as in ethanol, correspond to a greater knock resistance. Ex. 2
`
`at 1:43-45 (“Ethanol has a blended octane number (ON) of 110 (versus
`
`95 for premium gasoline)”).
`
`ii) Description of Port Fuel Injection/Direct Fuel Injection
`Technology (“PFDI”)
`In a spark ignition engine, the fuel is mixed with air in the air intake at the
`
`intake manifold. The fuel-air mixture is then distributed to all cylinders. Once the
`
`piston compresses the fuel-air mixture, the spark ignites it, which causes
`
`combustion.
`
`Port fuel injection has a fuel injector dedicated to each cylinder in an intake
`
`runner or port that leads to the intake valve of the respective cylinder. The
`
`configuration used in port fuel injection allows greater control over the fuel delivery
`
`and more accurate air/fuel mixtures to each cylinder. With the advance of fuel
`
`injection technologies, including high-pressure injectors that could withstand high
`
`temperatures, direct fuel injection became possible and is used to provide better
`
`volumetric efficiency. Direct injection also can cool the engine air through
`
`vaporization of the fuel (a phenom