Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:1147
`
`LAMKIN IP DEFENSE
`RDL@LamkinIPDefense.com
`Rachael D. Lamkin (246066)
`One Harbor Drive, Suite 304
`Sausalito, CA 94965
`(916) 747-6091 Telephone
`Michelle L. Marriott (pro hac vice)
`michelle.marriott@eriseip.com
`Erise IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd.
`Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`(913) 777-5600 Telephone
`(913) 777-5601 Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Garmin
`International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`AND GARMIN LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 1 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:1148
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`I.
`LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................................................ 1
`II.
`GARMIN’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS .......................................... 2
`III.
`A. US Patent No. 6,013,007 ............................................................................. 2
`1. Means For Computing Athletic Performance Data, Claims 1, 21, limitation
`1(b). .............................................................................................................. 3
`2. Means For Presenting Athletic Performance Feedback Data, Claims 1, 21,
`limitation 1(c). ............................................................................................. 5
`3. Means For Suspending And Resuming Operation, Claim 7 ........................ 6
`4. Comprising Means for Exchanging GPS Route Waypoints Via Said
`Internet Web Site, Claim 25. ....................................................................... 6
`B. US Patent No. 7,088,233 ............................................................................. 7
`1. First Personal Device, Claims 1, 10, 14, 24, Limitation (a). ....................... 7
`2. A Security Mechanism Governing Information Transmission Between the
`First and Second Devices, Claim 1(c). ........................................................ 8
`3. Body or Physiological Parameters, Claims 8-9 ........................................... 9
`4. Location Determination Module, Claim 24 ............................................... 10
`5. Powered Down State, Claim 26 ................................................................. 10
`6. Means for Signaling, Claim 26 .................................................................. 11
`C. US Patent No. 9,314,192 ........................................................................... 11
`1. Any One of a Plurality of Positions, Claims 1, 20 ..................................... 11
`2. Analyzing the Measured Value For Features That Are Position Dependent,
`Claims 1, 20 ............................................................................................... 12
`3. Derive a Subject-Related Value, Claims 1, 20 .......................................... 12
`D. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,277,377 and 6,976,958 ................................................ 13
`1. “web-enabled wireless phone” /“internet-enabled wireless web device” .. 14
`2. “method for interactive exercising monitoring” and “sending the exercise-
`related information to an internet server” (’377) ....................................... 16
`3. “calculation performed by the server based on the exercise-related
`information” (’377) .................................................................................... 17
`4. “physiological status” (’377) ..................................................................... 19
`5. disease management limitations: “health monitoring device,” “disease state
`or condition,” and “health parameter” (’958) ............................................ 19
`a) Health monitoring device (’958 Patent Claims 15, 16) ...................... 20
`b) Disease state or condition (’958 Claims 15, 16) ................................. 21
`c) Health parameter (’958 Claims 15, 16) .............................................. 22
`E. U.S. Patent No. 9,801,542 (Claims 13 and 15) .......................................... 22
`
`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
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 2 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:1149
`
`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
`
`Cases
`Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, No. C-05-01114,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19314, 2007 WL 678317 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2,
`2007) ............................................................................................................. 10
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................... 4
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............ 2, 16, 17
`B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................... 3
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................. 5
`Biedermann Motech GmbH v. Acme Spine, LLC, No. 06-3619, 2007 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 98330, 2007 WL 6210841 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2007) ............ 10
`Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......... 23
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................... 20
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 4, 6, 7
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) ....................................................................................................... 23, 24
`Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd.., 814 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
`Cir. Feb. 29, 2016) ......................................................................................... 8
`Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Fed.-Mogul Corp., 344 F. App’x 607
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 8, 11
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ......................... 9, 22
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 2
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................... 1, 2
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14,
`2016) ............................................................................................................... 8
`Prolifiq Software Inc. v. Veeva Sys. Inc., C 13-03644 SI, 2014 WL 3870016
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) .............................................................................. 24
`Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir.
`2013) ....................................................................................................... 5, 7, 8
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................... 3
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 3 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:1150
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Garmin is the world leader in the manufacture of sophisticated activity
`tracking and lifestyle devices, devices that bear no resemblance to the Patents-in-
`Suit, which are drawn to medical devices, archaic technologies, or both. For
`example, Garmin’s state-of-the-art GPS fitness watches are worlds apart from the
`decades-old ’007 Patent, which covers a GPS receiver velcroed to the top of a
`baseball cap or wired headphones. Dkt. 45-1 (’007 Patent 5:11-14). As a second
`example, Garmin’s accused fitness watches are expressly distinct from the ’958
`Patent, which “only relate to disease states or conditions of a patient” and “do not
`relate to exercise parameters.” Declaration of Michelle Marriott (“Marriott Dec.”)
`Ex. K (8,712,510 File History, Office Action Response dated October 22, 2012, at
`p. 17, discussed infra). Further, many of the Patents-in-Suit have expired or are near
`expiration, further evidencing their outdated subjects.
`Philips, by its own admission, doesn’t make or sell any products embodying
`the Patents-in-Suit. Philips is simply engaging in an ongoing rent-seeking campaign.
`A campaign that failed in the United Kingdom where Garmin invalidated the sister
`patent to the ’007. A campaign that failed in Germany, where Garmin invalidated a
`sister patent to the two asserted Quy (’377 and ’958) patents. And a campaign that
`Garmin respectfully believes will fail here. The asserted claims are far afield
`Garmin’s cutting-edge fitness watches, as is clear from Philips’ proposed claim
`constructions, which are unmoored from the Patents-in-Suit in an attempt to capture
`Garmin’s truly pioneering technologies.
`II.
`LEGAL AUTHORITY
`“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the
`invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc, quotation marks excluded).
`“[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of
`
`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
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 4 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:1151
`
`
`particular claim terms.” Id. at 1314. However, the claims “do not stand alone[.]” Id.
`at 1315. They are part of “‘a fully integrated written instrument,’ consisting
`principally of a specification that concludes with the claims[,]” and must therefore
`“be read in view of the specification[.]” Id. Moreover, patentees are precluded from
`recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during
`prosecution. Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`2017). When the patentee unequivocally and unambiguously disavows a certain
`meaning to obtain a patent, the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer narrows
`the meaning of the claim consistent with the scope of the claim surrendered. Id.
`Secondary to the intrinsic evidence, “we have also authorized district courts
`to rely on extrinsic evidence, which consists of all evidence external to the patent
`and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`learned treatises.” Phillips, at 1317. But “while extrinsic evidence ‘can shed useful
`light on the relevant art,’” it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in
`determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language’.” Id.
`“When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a
`claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond
`Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`III. GARMIN’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
`A. US Patent No. 6,013,007
`The ’007 Patent, filed more than twenty-two (22) years ago, covers a portable
`system comprising a GPS receiver attached to a hat or headphones and a Walkman®
`like unit clipped to the waist of a runner or other athlete. The archaic unit has no wifi
`or internet capability:
`
`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
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 5 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:1152
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`(’007, FIGs 2, 7.)
`1. Means For Computing Athletic Performance Data, Claims
`1, 21, limitation 1(b).1
`The Parties agree that limitations 1(b) and 21(b) are means-plus-function
`(“MPF”) limitations. “Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step
`process. The court must first identify the claimed function. Then, the court must
`determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the
`claimed function.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2015). The “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only
`if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to
`the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d
`1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997).2
`The function of limitation (b) is “computing athletic performance feedback
`data from the series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver[.]”
`Dkt 45-1 (’007) 11:13-15. The ’007 Patent states that, “[d]uring the exercise session,
`the GPS receiver module (604) continuously determines the athlete’s geographic
`position[,]” and stores that position, along with the date and time information for
`
`1 Please see Exhibit A for a chart containing the Parties’ proposed constructions for
`each claim term. Please see Exhibit B for a summary chart containing evidence
`identified by Garmin in the Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 73-4).
`2 All underlined text is “emphasis added” unless otherwise noted.
`
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 6 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:1153
`
`
`each geographic position. Id. at 7:40-44. “From these positions and times,
`performance data such as elapsed distance, current and average speeds and paces,
`calories burned, miles remaining, and time remaining are calculated.” Id. 7:45-48.
`That is, the ’007 discloses the function of being able to compute athletic performance
`feedback data.
`But the ’007 discloses no algorithm or algorithms to calculate that function.
`Instead, the specification says “[a] smart algorithm can be used to filter out the
`erroneous position points resulting from signal interference or from induced errors
`through the U.S. government’s Selective Availability (SA) program, which
`intentionally limits the absolute accuracy of civilian GPS receivers.” Id. 7:52-56.
`The ’007 fails to disclose the “smart algorithm.”
`The failure to disclose algorithmic structure clearly linked to the claimed
`function – calculating performance data (including calories) from time-stamped
`waypoints (7:40-48) and filtering out induced erroneous data from the SA program
`(7:52-56) – renders the claims indefinite. Indeed, the invocation of a secret,
`undisclosed “smart algorithm” is fatal to the claim. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY
`Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also EON Corp.
`IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Philips proposes that the structure is “a processor and equivalents.” But
`Philips position is contra well-established law. EON, 785 F.3d at 621 (“this court
`has consistently required that the structure disclosed in the specification be more
`than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor”); see also Aristocrat,
`521 F.3d at 1333. The function at issue involves “special programming,” i.e.,
`“functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose
`computer.” EON, 785 F.3d at 623. Because the limitation requires more than just
`“basic ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing’ functions[,]” a mere processor cannot
`provide the requisite structure. See id. at 621.
`
`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
`
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 7 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:1154
`
`
`Philips’ proposed construction attempts to swiss-cheese limitation (b). The
`limitation recites, “means for computing athletic performance feedback data from
`the series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver.” The ’007
`states: “From these positions and times, performance data such as elapsed distance,
`current and average speeds and paces, calories burned, miles remaining, and time
`remaining are calculated.” Dkt. 45-1 7:45-48. Recognizing that the ’007 fails to
`teach an algorithm that calculates any of the athletic performance feedback data,
`much less (for example) calories, Philips simply reads both athletic performance
`feedback data and calories out of the claim language and specification. Philips’
`proposed construction, which reads out the athletic performance feedback data,
`cannot be correct. Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). Because the ’007 specification fails
`to disclose algorithmic structure that is clearly linked to the claimed function at
`limitation (b), Claims 1 and 21 are indefinite.
`2. Means For Presenting Athletic Performance Feedback
`Data, Claims 1, 21, limitation 1(c).
`The Parties agree that limitation (c) is an MPF limitation. The function of
`limitation (c) is “presenting the athletic performance feedback data to an athlete.”
`The corresponding structure is wired headphones (including all technical
`components for audio presentation), with feedback data also optionally scrolled
`across the display while it is being announced via the audio headphones.
`As described in the specification, an object of the present invention [a purpose
`read into the claims3] is to provide “a device which communicates with the athlete
`through audio signals, thus reducing visual distractions and allowing for safely
`
`
`3 Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. Cir.
`2013), discussed infra.
`
`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
`
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 8 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:1155
`
`
`obtaining performance feedback along poorly illuminated tracks and trails[.]” Dkt.
`45-1 (’007) 2:3, 21-25. The only structures “clearly linked” to limitation (c) are the
`wired (“plugged in”) audio headphones (202), and the screen of the feedback device
`(101) which can scroll data “in addition to audio performance feedback[.]” Id.
`FIG1A (112), FIG1(c) (120), FIGs 3-5, 1:48-49, 4:4-16, 4:37-39, 5:21-25, 7:57-60.
`Philips’ proposed construction (“display and/or audio headphones”) is
`directly contradicted by the teachings of the ’007, which makes clear that visually
`displaying feedback data was dangerous to an athlete who might injure herself trying
`to look at feedback data while running. Dkt. 45-1 at 2:21-25. Thus, the ’007 provides
`for audio performance feedback data “without any visual distractions.” Id. at 1:66.
`The system also offers, optionally, text scrolling on a display. Id. at 4:10-16. Indeed,
`Philips’ proposed construction turns the teachings of the ’007 Patent on its head,
`proposing that text is required but audio is optional. This is not what the ’007
`discloses, and Philips’ proposed construction must be rejected.
`3. Means For Suspending And Resuming Operation, Claim 7
`The Parties agree that dependent Claim 7 is an MPF limitation. The function
`of dependent Claim 7 is “suspending and resuming operation of said means for
`computing when a speed of the athlete falls below a predetermined threshold.”
`Once again, the only disclosure is a “smart algorithm” that performs a portion
`of this operation. Dkt. 45-1 at 8:5-9. That is insufficient as a matter of law. See EON,
`785 F.3d at 621. Further, the referenced “smart algorithm” doesn’t even explain how
`to compute the predetermined threshold portion of the limitation. Id. at 8:5-9. The
`phrase “predetermined threshold” does not appear in the specification. Claim 7 is
`indefinite for failing to disclose algorithmic structure for the claimed function.
`4.
`Comprising Means for Exchanging GPS Route Waypoints
`Via Said Internet Web Site, Claim 25.
`The Parties agree this dependent claim is an MPF limitation. The function of
`
`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
`
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 9 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:1156
`
`
`the limitation is “exchanging GPS route waypoints via said Internet web site.” The
`only mention of this functionality is at 9:59-62, but no algorithmic structure for
`performing the function is disclosed. Philips contends that a website is a sufficiently
`disclosed structure, but this argument suffers from the same fatal error as above; a
`website is a general purpose or generic structure and here the function requires
`disclosure regarding the exchange of GPS route waypoints through the website.
`There is no algorithm disclosed that contains instructions for exchanging waypoints,
`i.e., providing and downloading specific geographic locations. Because the
`limitation at-issue requires more than just “basic ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and
`‘storing’ functions[,]” a generic processor [or website] cannot provide the requisite
`structure. See EON, 785 F.3d at 621.
`B. US Patent No. 7,088,233
`The ’233 Patent is drawn toward a “bi-directional” communication system
`between a Personal Medical Device (“PMD”) such as a pacemaker and a second
`device allowing remote monitoring of a patient ’233, Dkt. 45-2, at 11:51, 1:47-50.
`1.
`First Personal Device, Claims 1, 10, 14, 24, Limitation (a).
`The claims of the ’233 Patent are drawn toward the use of medical devices.
`Philips own expert admits, “the patent contemplates that the system of Claim 1
`would be used in medical settings.” Dkt. No. 73-5 (“Martin Dec.”) ¶28. And,
`the ’233 Patent repeatedly uses the legally significant term “the present invention”
`to refer to embodiments that only contain Personal Medical Devices. Dkt. 45-2 at
`2:38-39, 2:44-48, FIGS 1, 4A-4F, 5.
`“When a patent thus describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a
`whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” Univ. of Minn., 717 F.3d
`at 936 (citations omitted). As the ’233 makes clear, “the present invention” is
`“specifically” for “medically distressed persons and those in whom an [sic] personal
`medical device has been deployed[.]” Dkt. 45-2 at 1:20-27. The device claimed in
`
`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
`
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 10 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:1157
`
`
`the “present invention” is limited to medical devices. Id. at 2:38-39, 2:44-48, FIGS
`1, 4A-4F, 5. “When a patent thus describes the features of ‘the present invention’ as
`a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” Univ. of Minn., 717 F.3d
`at 936; see also Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd.., 814 F.3d 1343,
`1353 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 29, 2016) (accord); Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839
`F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2016) (accord). The patentee consistently
`advised the public that his “invention” was a medical device, and “the public is
`entitled to take the patentee at his word.” Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Fed.-
`Mogul Corp., 344 F. App’x 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`2.
`A Security Mechanism Governing Information
`Transmission Between the First and Second Devices, Claim
`1(c).4
`Philips contends that the “governing” term is “the basis for allowing the
`claim.” Marriott Dec. Ex. LL at p. 16 (emphasis in original). The ’233 uses the term
`“governing” as it is generally employed, i.e., “to exercise continuous sovereign
`authority over.” Marriott Dec. Ex. MM. And yet Philips proposes switching out the
`critical “governing” term with a less accurate term, “controlling.” Philips’ attempt
`to construe “govern” as “control” reads out the most-material aspect of the claim
`term, i.e., that the security mechanism “governs” or exercises continuous authority
`over the transmission of information between the first and second devices.
`Philips states that Fig. 5 “is particularly helpful to understanding security in
`the context of the invention.” Marriott Dec. Ex. LL at 16-17. Garmin agrees. Figure
`5 details the multiple levels of security and access provided and denied in a
`continuous, governing manner by the system. Dkt. 45-2 at 11:47-12:49, 13:21-14:10.
`Indeed, the claimed system constantly governs access to the single medical device
`
`4 Philips position on the “wireless communication” term is not clear to Garmin. As
`such, Garmin will address in its responsive brief.
`
`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
`
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 11 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:1158
`
`
`by multiple persons, with multiple access levels. Id. The very sections Philips cites
`make clear that the system “governs” (i.e., constantly controls the flow of
`information). The word actually used in the claim conveys the most-faithful meaning
`and should be maintained.
`3.
`Body or Physiological Parameters, Claims 8-9
`The ’233 Patent does not define body parameters or physiological parameters.
`See, e.g., Dkt. 45-2 at 3:29-33. It also does not explain the difference between body
`parameters and physiological parameters. Id. Further, the meaning of the terms have
`considerable overlap. As such, the terms are fatally indefinite. See Nautilus, Inc. v.
`Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014) (Patent Act requires that a patent
`specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
`distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the]
`invention”) (emphasis in the original; quoting 35 U. S. C. §112, ¶2 (2006 ed.)).
`Although the Examiner failed to issue a single rejection during the prosecution
`of the ’233 Patent, the Examiner for another asserted patent – U.S. Patent No.
`8,277,377 – rejected claims containing a similar “physiologic” term as indefinite:
`The examiner cannot discern based on the specification the distinction
`between physiological data and exercise data. In fact, often times the two
`overlap. For example, heart rate could be “physiological data” and “exercise
`data.” The broadest reasonable limitation of both terms cannot be discerned
`and as such the terms are indefinite.5
`Marriott Dec. Ex. A (’377 5/4/2009 Non-Final Rejection).
`Here similarly, body weight, for example, could be both a body and a
`physiologic parameter, as could heart rate. There is simply no teaching provided in
`
`
`5 The claims of the ’377 did ultimately issue with the physiologic and exercise terms
`therein but the Examiner’s reasoning in his allowance is not clear. Garmin contends
`those claims are also indefinite, as discussed below.
`
`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
`
`9
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 12 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:1159
`
`
`the ’233 as to the proper metes and bounds of the body parameter and physiologic
`parameter terms; they are thus indefinite.
`4.
`Location Determination Module, Claim 24
`The ’233 sets forth the two ways the claimed system can determine location:
`(1) terrestrial location; and (2) a combination of both terrestrial and satellite [GPS]
`navigation. Dkt. 45-2 at 13:15-23, 16:10-15. The first way (terrestrial only) is
`claimed in Claim 24, while the second way (combination of both terrestrial and GPS)
`is claimed in claim 25.
`Claim 24 reads, “The system of claim 1, wherein the first personal device
`further comprises a location determination module that determines the geographical
`location of the first personal device.” (16:10-13.) Claim 25 reads, “The system of
`claim 24, wherein the location determination module further comprises a GPS
`receiver.” Id. at 16:14-15. The use of “further comprises” in Claim 25 denotes that
`the GPS receiver was an additional limitation to what was claimed in Claim 24.
`Biedermann Motech GmbH v. Acme Spine, LLC, No. 06-3619, 2007 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 98330, 2007 WL 6210841, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2007); Acacia Media
`Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, No. C-05-01114, 2007 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 19314, 2007 WL 678317, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007). As such, the
`“location module” of Claim 24 should be construed as “terrestrial navigation,” and
`Claim 25 thus requires both terrestrial and GPS navigation.
`5.
`Powered Down State, Claim 26
`The ’233 states, “It is therefore an important aspect of the present invention
`to provide a completely powered-off state[.]” Dkt. 45-2 at 14:27-28. And, “the
`transceiver must consume no power in the powered-off state.” Id. 14:32-33. Thus,
`Garmin proposes that the bi-directional communications module having a “powered-
`down state” of Claim 26 be construed as “having a state that consumes no power.”
`
`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
`
`10
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Philips North America LLC EX2015
`Page 13 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS Document 75 Filed 06/26/20 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:1160
`
`
`Lydall, 344 F. App’x, at 613.
`6. Means for Signaling, Claim 26
`The Parties agree that Claim 26 is an MPF claim. Both Parties agree as to the
`function: signaling the module to transition from the powered down state to the
`powered up state. Both Parties point to the same Figure (7) and the same disclosure:
`14:34-60. But Philips then improperly again cherry picks from the disclosure. See
`Dkt. 45-2 at 14:34-60. Garmin’s proposed construction includes the entire structure
`and is proper under the well-established law.
`C. US Patent No. 9,314,192
`The ’192 Patent covers an activity monitoring device that can be placed
`anywhere on the body. The activity monitor contains a processor that allows the
`monitor to calculate the amount of activity regardless of where the monitor is placed
`on the body. See Dkt. 45-5 (’192 Patent) at 2:49-64.
`1.
`Any One of a Plurality of Positions, Claims 1, 20
`Independent claims 1 and 20 each contain limitation (a), which claims a sensor
`that can be attached at “any one of a plurality of positions” on the body/subject. Dkt.
`45-5 at 11:3-4, 12:58-59. The ’192 Patent makes clear that the sensor can be attached
`anywhere on the body. Id. at 4:11-24, 7:25-28, 7:62-67, 8:13-16. Further, nothing in
`the specification limits the locations the monitor can be placed on the body; in fact,
`the opposite is true – the locations are limitless. Id. at 2:6-23:6, 4:11-24, 5:23, 7:25-
`28, 8:13-16. Thus, the specification teaches that “any one of a plurality of positions”
`on the body means “any position” on the body.
`The patentee confirmed the same during prosecution of the ’192 Patent when
`distinguishing the claims of the ’192 from prior art (Merkel). The Merkel device
`could be placed “at one of a plurality of positions.” Marriott Dec. Ex. O (7/21/2011
`Preliminary Amendment) p.10. The patentee said his invention was distinguishable
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11