Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5019 Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLAST MOTION, INC., a California
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` Case No.: 15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`ORDER ON CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ZEPP LABS, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff Blast Motion, Inc. (“Blast”) brings suit against Defendant Zepp Labs, Inc.
`
`
`
`(“Zepp”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,902,855 (the “’855 patent”), 8,903,521
`
`(the “’521 patent”), 9,039,527 (the “’527 patent”), 8,944,928 (the “’928 patent”), and
`
`8,941,723 (the “’723 patent”). Defendant counterclaims against Plaintiff for infringement
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,781,610 (the “’610 patent”), and 8,989,441 (the “’441 patent”). The
`
`patents are in the field of motion detection and analysis, particularly as applied to analyzing
`
`a user’s motions in various sports (e.g., the swing of a baseball bat or golf club). After
`
`considering the briefing and oral argument, the Court construes the disputed claim terms
`
`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
`
`as follows.
`
`27
`
`/ / /
`
`28
`
`/ / /
`
`1
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5020 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“A determination of infringement involves a two-step analysis. ‘First, the claim
`
`must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as
`
`properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process.’” Omega Eng’g,
`
`Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Carroll Touch, Inc. v.
`
`Electro Mech. Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`
`The first step, commonly known as claim construction, is presently before the Court.
`
`Claim construction is a matter of law for the Court’s determination. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388 (1996) (“[J]udges, not juries, are the better suited to
`
`find the acquired meaning of patent terms.”).
`
`Words of a claim are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.”
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[T]he
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
`
`effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Because the inquiry into the meaning of claim terms is an objective
`
`one, “a court looks to those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill
`
`in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.” Innova/Pure Water,
`
`Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Those
`
`sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
`
`prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”1 Id. (citing, inter alia, Vitronics, 90
`
`24
`
`F.3d at 1582–83).
`
`25
`
`/ / /
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`1 The first three sources are considered “intrinsic evidence” of claim meaning. See generally Phillips, 415
`F.3d at 1314–17.
`
`2
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5021 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Claim construction begins with an analysis of the words of the claims themselves.
`
`See Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp., 365 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(holding that claim construction “begins and ends” with claim’s actual words). “In some
`
`cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art
`
`may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves
`
`little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
`
`words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. However, the meaning of a claim term as understood
`
`by ordinarily skilled artisans often is not immediately apparent. Id. In those situations, the
`
`court looks to “sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art
`
`would have understood disputed claim language to mean.” Id. Or, when a patentee
`
`“chooses to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary
`
`meaning,” the court can use the patentee’s meaning “as long as the special definition of the
`
`term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.
`
`In examining the claims themselves, “the context in which a term is used can be
`
`highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Moreover, “[o]ther claims of the patent in
`
`question, both asserted and unasserted can . . . be valuable sources of enlightenment as to
`
`the meaning of a claim term.” Id. (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). “Because claim
`
`terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim
`
`can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Id. Conversely, under
`
`the doctrine of claim differentiation, “‘different words or phrases used in separate claims
`
`are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope.’” Andersen
`
`Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Karlin
`
`Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`“The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims
`
`or when it defines them by implication.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “In addition to
`
`3
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5022 Page 4 of 40
`
`
`providing contemporaneous technological context for defining claim terms, the patent
`
`applicant may also define a claim term in the specification ‘in a manner inconsistent with
`
`its ordinary meaning.’” Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 370 F.3d 1354, 1360
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). “Usually, [the specification] is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582; accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1317 (“It is . . . entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to
`
`rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”).
`
`Patent claims should ordinarily be construed to encompass the preferred
`
`embodiments described in the specification, for “[a] claim construction that excludes a
`
`preferred embodiment . . . ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’” SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`
`Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583). However,
`
`a court should not import limitations from the specification into the claims, Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
`
`the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
`
`embodiments.”), absent a specific reference in the claims themselves, Reinshaw PLC v.
`
`Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[A] party wishing to
`
`use statements in the written description to confine or otherwise affect a patent’s scope
`
`must, at the very least, point to a term or terms in the claim with which to draw in those
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`statements.”).
`
`20
`
`
`
`The patent’s prosecution history, if in evidence, may also shed light on claim
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`construction. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “This history contains the complete record of all
`
`proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office [(“PTO”)], including any express
`
`representations made by the applicant regarding scope of the claims.” Id. “Like the
`
`specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor
`
`understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Although the prosecution history
`
`“often lacks the clarity of the specification,” it is nevertheless useful to show “how the
`
`inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the
`
`course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id.
`
`4
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5023 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`
`“In most situations, an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any
`
`ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such circumstances, it is improper to rely on
`
`extrinsic evidence.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. Thus, expert testimony on the proper
`
`construction of disputed claim terms “may only be relied upon if the patent documents,
`
`taken as a whole, are insufficient to enable the court to construe disputed claim terms.”
`
`Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585.
`
`
`
`However, Vitronics does not state a rule of admissibility, nor does it “prohibit courts
`
`from examining extrinsic evidence, even where the patent document is itself clear.” Pitney
`
`Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As the Federal
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Circuit has made clear:
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`[B]ecause extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of
`the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the
`district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence.
`
`16
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319; accord Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]rial courts generally can hear expert testimony for background and
`
`education on the technology implicated by the presented claim construction issues, and
`
`trial courts have broad discretion in this regard.”). The court is not “barred from
`
`considering any particular sources or required to analyze sources in any specific sequence,
`
`as long as those sources are not used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in
`
`22
`
`light of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324 (emphasis added); see also
`
`23
`
`Biagro W. Sales, Inc. v. Grow More, Inc., 423 F.3d 1296, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Extrinsic
`
`24
`
`evidence, such as expert testimony, may be useful in claim construction, but it should be
`
`25
`
`considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.”).
`
`26
`
`II. Definiteness
`
`27
`
`
`
`Patent claims must point out with particularity the subject matter regarded as the
`
`28
`
`claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Section 112(b) requires that “a patent’s claims,
`
`5
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5024 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). If not, the patent claim fails § 112(b) and
`
`is indefinite. Id. Definiteness is evaluated from the perspective of someone skilled in the
`
`relevant art at the time the patent was filed. Id. at 2128.
`
`III. Functional Claiming
`
`A patent claim may be expressed in functional language. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6;
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc
`
`in relevant portion). Section 112, paragraph 6 (also referred to as Section 112(f)) provides
`
`that “an element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
`
`performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
`
`thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C.A. § 112(f).
`
`However, § 112(f) does not apply to all functional language. There is a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112(f) applies if a claim term uses “means,” and that it does not apply
`
`in absence of this term. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The standard to rebut either
`
`presumption “is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. at 1349.
`
`Thus, the “presumption against the application of § 112, ¶ 6 to a claim term lacking the
`
`word ‘means’ can be overcome if a party can ‘demonstrate . . . that the claim term fails to
`
`‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient
`
`structure for performing that function.’” Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin.
`
`Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349–50).
`
`“In undertaking this analysis, we ask if the claim language, read in light of the specification,
`
`recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6.” Id. (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). “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.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d
`
`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
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5025 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). With respect to computer-implemented functional claims, a
`
`“microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic
`
`functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require
`
`disclosure of an algorithm.” EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785
`
`F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “The algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical
`
`formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient
`
`structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352 (citing Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d
`
`1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`If § 112(f) applies, the functional claim term is limited to “only the structure,
`
`materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function
`
`and equivalents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. Construing a functional term
`
`requires two steps. “First, the court must determine the claimed function. Second, the
`
`court must identify the corresponding structure in the written description of the patent that
`
`performs the function.” Noah Sys., Inc., 675 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Applied Med. Res.
`
`Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`The parties dispute the meaning of nine claim terms or phrases. The parties
`
`18
`
`19
`
`originally disputed the meaning of ten terms or phrases, but prior to the Markman hearing
`
`Defendant dropped the term “slow motion display . . . at normal speed” as used in the ’527
`
`20
`
`patent. (ECF No. 83, at 2.2) The disputed claim terms are spread across seven patents
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`belonging to both Plaintiff (five) and Defendant (two). The first five terms are addressed
`
`to Plaintiff’s patents. The remaining terms are addressed to Defendant’s patents. Thus,
`
`brief descriptions of Plaintiff’s patents are provided below, followed by a discussion of
`
`their respective disputed terms, and Defendant’s patents and terms are discussed thereafter.
`
`25
`
`/ / /
`
`26
`
`/ / /
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2 Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.
`
`7
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5026 Page 8 of 40
`
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff’s Patents
`
`All five of Plaintiff’s patents are in the same patent family. They are directed
`
`generally to capturing motion data using a motion sensor, which then wirelessly transmits
`
`all or some of the data to a separate device for further analysis. Each of Plaintiff’s five
`
`patents focuses on a different aspect of this general concept.
`
`A. Patent No. 8,905,855 (“System and Method for Utilizing Motion Capture Data”)
`
`
`
`This invention is directed to a system and method where a user can compare motion
`
`analysis data to previously stored data from that user, another user, and/or the same or
`
`another piece of sporting equipment. The claims require both a motion capture element
`
`and an application (“app”) executable on a mobile device. The motion capture element
`
`(i.e., a sensor) is attached to the user or a piece of equipment and captures data such as
`
`orientation, position, velocity, or acceleration associated with the user or piece of
`
`equipment. The sensor then sends the data to the app on a mobile device, where the mobile
`
`device receives, analyzes, and stores the data. Finally, the mobile device displays a
`
`comparison between the captured motion data and previously stored data.
`
`B. Patent No. 8,903,521 (“Motion Capture Element”)
`
`This invention is directed to an apparatus (i.e., motion capture element) capable of
`
`detecting a false positive event. The sensor first estimates an initial orientation based on
`
`motion capture data from two points in time. The sensor then collects data that comprise
`
`sensor values, which the sensor will compare to determine if there is a false positive event.
`
`In particular, if a first value meets a threshold value and a second value meets a second
`
`threshold value in a specific time window, the sensor signifies a prospective event. This
`
`prospective event is compared to data associated with a typical event in order to determine
`
`whether there has been a false positive. If the signified event is a valid event (i.e., not a
`
`false positive), the sensor then saves the valid event in memory, stores the data, and
`
`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
`
`transmits the data via radio.
`
`27
`
`/ / /
`
`28
`
`/ / /
`
`8
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5027 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`C. Patent No. 9,039,527 (“Broadcasting Method for Broadcasting Images with
`
`Augmented Motion Data”)
`
`This invention is directed to a broadcasting method for broadcasting images
`
`alongside motion data. According to the claims, a camera captures at least one image
`
`associated with a motion capture element, or a user associated with a motion capture
`
`element, or both. Next, a computer wirelessly receives both the image(s) and the motion
`
`capture data. In possession of both the image(s) and the motion data, the computer then
`
`draws an avatar or image of the user, and then overlays at least one of the following onto
`
`the image or avatar: a 3-D overlay, rating, power factor, calculated ball flight path, timeline,
`
`an impact location, or slow motion display. At this point, the computer broadcasts the
`
`avatar(s) and/or the image(s) to a multiplicity of display devices.
`
`D. Patent No. 8,944,928 (“Virtual Reality System for Viewing Current and Previously
`
`Stored or Calculated Motion Data”)
`
`This invention is directed to a method for the virtual reality display of motion
`
`analysis data associated with a user or piece of equipment using an avatar. First, a sensor
`
`captures values such as orientation, position, velocity, or acceleration associated with a
`
`user or piece of equipment. The sensor then sends the motion capture data to a mobile
`
`device, which in turn analyzes and stores the data. The mobile device also accesses
`
`previously stored motion capture data. The mobile device then displays a virtual reality
`
`display using an avatar to compare the motion data (i.e., both the motion data it just
`
`received and the previously stored motion data).
`
`E. Patent No. 8,941,723 (“Portable Wireless Mobile Device Motion Capture and
`
`Analysis System and Method”)
`
`This invention is directed to a system (i.e., a motion capture element and an app
`
`executable on a mobile device) for capturing data associated with a user or piece of
`
`equipment and storing the data in remote storage. As with many of Plaintiff’s patents, the
`
`system first requires a motion capture element (i.e., sensor) configured to capture motion
`
`data such as orientation, position, velocity, and acceleration. The mobile device recognizes
`
`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
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5028 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`and associates the motion capture element with assigned locations of a user or piece of
`
`equipment. The mobile device wirelessly receives the data associated with the motion
`
`capture element, then analyzes and displays the motion analysis data on the user’s mobile
`
`device. Because the mobile device is configured to communicate wirelessly with the
`
`remote database, the mobile device will store such data in the remote database (i.e., not on
`
`the mobile device itself).
`
`II. Disputed Terms in Plaintiff’s Patents
`
`A. “said data” (’928 patent, claim 13; ’855 patent, claims 1, 3–6; ’521 patent, claims
`
`1, 4, 5, 14, 19)
`
`Plaintiff would construe the term as “data that comprises sensor values.” (ECF No.
`
`83, at 3.) Defendant argues the term is indefinite. (Id.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff
`
`and finds that “said data” is not indefinite. Thus, the Court construes the term “said data”
`
`to mean “data that comprises sensor values.”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`Defendant argues that “said data” is indefinite because, as an antecedent, it must
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`refer back to a particular type of data. (Def.’s Br. 10, ECF No. 48.) However, Defendant
`
`argues that it fails to do so, and thus a person of ordinary skill would not understand what
`
`“said data” refers back to. (Id. (citing Declaration of Steven Nesbit in Support of Zepp’s
`
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (“Nesbit Decl.”) ¶ 23, ECF No. 48-4).) Specifically,
`
`Defendant argues there are two types of data: (1) data that comprises sensor values
`
`collected by the microcontroller from a sensor, and (2) data associated with said at least
`
`one motion capture element that is received by a computer on a mobile device. (Id. at 11.)
`
`However, according to Defendant, there is no way of knowing whether both sets of data
`
`are the same. (Id.) Additionally, Defendant argues that the claims of the ’521 patent and
`
`claim 3 of the ’855 patent further complicate the problem, since they state that a “valid
`
`event” is saved as “said data.” (Id. at 11–12.) Thus, Defendant argues that these claims
`
`impossibly require “‘said data’ to be simultaneously the sensor values collected from the
`
`
`
`3 Claim locations are based on the parties’ recently filed Joint Hearing Statement. (See ECF No. 83.)
`
`10
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5029 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`sensors, just the subset of that data constituting a valid event, and some unspecified set of
`
`data associated with the motion capture element.” (Id. at 12 (citing Nesbit Decl. ¶ 29).)
`
`
`
`As to Plaintiff’s proposed construction, Defendant argues that Plaintiff arbitrarily
`
`chooses one of these data types and assigns “said data” to encompass only that type of data,
`
`ignoring the other “data” limitations in the claims. (Id. at 12–13.) Regarding the ’855 and
`
`’928 patents, Defendant argues that Plaintiff equates “data that comprises sensor values”
`
`with “data associated with said at least one motion capture element.” (Id. at 13.) However,
`
`Defendant contends that the specification contains several embodiments suggesting that
`
`“data associated with a motion capture element” may include more than just “data that
`
`comprises sensor values collected from a sensor.” (Id. (collecting citations).) Regarding
`
`the ’521 patent and claim 3 of the ’855 patent, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s
`
`construction does not address the difference between “data that comprises sensor values”
`
`collected from the sensor and “valid event data” identified following analysis of sensor
`
`values. (Id.) However, Defendant argues that the patent distinguishes both types of data;
`
`specifically, the motion capture element is capable of transmitting all motion data or just a
`
`subset of that data. (Id. (citing ’855 patent, at 25:5–17).) Thus, Defendant argues that these
`
`claims are indefinite because they fail to clarify to a person of ordinary skill which data
`
`“said data” applies to. (Id.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`Plaintiff responds that Defendant can only argue that the term is indefinite by
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`ignoring the context of the claims and the specification. (Pl.’s Resp. Br. 4, ECF No. 59.)
`
`Specifically, Defendant admits that the term is not indefinite as used in the ’723 patent.
`
`(Id.) Plaintiff provides a chart demonstrating that the only difference between the disputed
`
`claims of the ’855 and ’921 patents and the ’723 patent claims is a missing “said” before
`
`“data associated with said at least one motion capture element” that only appears in the
`
`’723 patent. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff argues that this minor difference would not render the
`
`claims indefinite because all the patents share the same specification, claims, and figures
`
`discussing “said data.” (Id. at 6 (citing Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger (“Zeger Decl.”)
`
`¶ 16, ECF No. 59-1).) Second, Plaintiff argues that the missing “said” does not create two
`
`11
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5030 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`different types of data. (Id. at 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff notes that the mobile device and/or
`
`app receives data that comprises sensor values via said wireless communication interface.
`
`Thus, according to Plaintiff, there is no other type of data that is transmitted via the wireless
`
`communication interface, and thus this data must be the data “said data” refers to.
`
`According to Plaintiff, Defendant’s other argument—that “said data” must mean a
`
`specific number of data (i.e., all data that comprises sensor values or a subset of sensor
`
`values, but never both)—similarly fails because that is not required by the plain language
`
`of the claims. (Id. at 6–7.) Plaintiff argues that the claims only refer to two types of data:
`
`(1) data that comprises sensor values, or (2) motion analysis data. (Id. at 7.) Thus, Plaintiff
`
`argues that a person of ordinary skill would understand that “valid event” is saved as “said
`
`data,” which is stored, transmitted, and later analyzed to form motion analysis data. (Id. at
`
`7.) A person of ordinary skill would further understand that the microcontroller is capable
`
`of using any number of sensor values, but would recognize that the type of data is the same
`
`(i.e., data that comprises sensor values). (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff argues that “said data” is not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`indefinite.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that “said data” is not indefinite as to all
`
`the disputed claims. As Plaintiff noted in its Responsive Brief, the claims require a motion
`
`capture element to “collect data that comprises sensor values” from a sensor, store “said
`
`data,” and then “transmit said data.” At this stage, it is clear that “said data” refers to “data
`
`that comprises sensor values.” Then, the claim requires a mobile device that has a wireless
`
`communications interface to obtain “said data.” At this stage, it is clear that the mobile
`
`device receives “said data” (i.e., data that comprises sensor values). The mobile device
`
`also contains a computer configured to “receive data associated with at least one motion
`
`capture element,” and then analyzes “said data” to form “motion analysis data.” Here is
`
`where the trouble starts. Defendant argues that “data associated with at least one motion
`
`capture element” is different than “data that comprises sensor values,” and thus the
`
`following “said data” is indefinite. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the only
`
`data transmitted from the motion capture element to the mobile device is “data that
`
`12
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5031 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`comprises sensor values.” Under this plain reading of the claim language, no other data is
`
`transmitted, and thus no other data can be analyzed by the computer to create motion
`
`analysis data. Thus, while Defendant correctly notes that data associated with at least one
`
`motion capture element can theoretically include things other than data that comprises
`
`sensor values, the claims do not require that particular data to be transmitted. They only
`
`explicitly require data comprising sensor values to be transmitted from the motion capture
`
`element to the mobile device via the wireless communication interface. Thus, the Court
`
`finds that this term is not indefinite.
`
`Regarding the ’521 patent and claim 3 of the ’855 patent, a person of ordinary skill
`
`would understand that “said data” refers to analyzed data signifying a “valid event.” Like
`
`the other claims, this claim requires a motion capture element that collects “data that
`
`comprises sensor values” from its sensor. However, instead of transmitting all of this data
`
`to another device for calculation, the claim requires that the motion capture element itself
`
`analyzes these sensor values to signify a “valid event.” Then, the motion capture element
`
`will “save valid event . . . as said data,” store “said data,” and transmit “said data.” Thus,
`
`a person of ordinary skill would understand that “said data” as used in these claims refers
`
`not to the all of the “data that comprises sensor values,” but simply a subset of that data
`
`that constitutes a “valid event” (i.e., ’855 patent, claim 3, ’521 patent, claim 1 (“information
`
`within an event time window”)). Accordingly, this term is not indefinite as used in the
`
`’521 patent and claim 3 of the ’855 patent. Thus the Court construes “said data” to mean
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`“data that comprises sensor values.”
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B. “virtual reality system / virtual reality display” (’928 patent, claim 1; ’855 patent,
`
`claim 13)
`
`Plaintiff would construe this term to mean “computer-simulated replication of an
`
`aspect of a physical environment / display showing a computer-simulated replication of an
`
`aspect of a physical environment.” (Pl.’s Br. 11, ECF No. 49.) Defendant would construe
`
`the term as “system/display that enables a user to interact with a simulated environment
`
`that renders simulations of the user’s physical movements.” (Id.) The Court agrees with
`
`13
`
`15-CV-700 JLS (NLS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-00700-JLS-NLS Document 92 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.5032 Page 14 of 40
`
`
`Plaintiff that the term does not necessarily require user interaction that renders simulations
`
`of the user’s physical movements.