throbber
Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`MICROWAVE VISION, S.A.,
`MVG INDUSTRIES, SAS, AND
`MVG, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`ETS-LINDGREN INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`1:14-CV-1153-SCJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the Court in this patent infringement action is defendant ETS-
`
`Lindgren, Inc.’s (ETS) invalidity-based motion for summary judgment (Doc.
`
`82), and plaintiffs’ oppositional (they seek a declaration of validity) cross-
`
`motion for summary judgment. Doc. 84.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`As the Court related in its Markman1 order:
`
`Plaintiff Microwave Vision, S.A. and its wholly owned subsidiaries
`MVG Industries, SAS, and MVG, Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), and
`
`
`1 See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 374 (1996) (evaluating a
`patent claim’s validity “in turn necessitates a determination of ‘what the words in
`the claim mean’”). A “Markman” hearing (or order) thus delves exclusively into
`claim construction issues.
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
` Defendant[] . . . ETS-Lindgren Inc. . . . are competitors in the field of
`over-the-air measurement systems, including multi-probe systems. See
`Doc. No. [19], p. 2. Among other things, such systems can be used to
`measure various parameters relating to antennas used in wireless
`devices, including wireless cellular communication devices. See id.
`Plaintiff Microwave Vision owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,443,170
`(the “170 Patent”), which issued on October 28, 2008, and is entitled
`“Device and Method for Determining at Least One Variable Associated
`With the Electromagnetic Radiation of an Object Being Tested.” See
`Doc. No. [1], ¶17; Doc. No. [1-1]. Plaintiffs believe that Defendants' . . .
`multi-probe array measurement system utilizes technology claimed by
`the 170 Patent. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have filed the present action
`accusing Defendants of patent infringement. See Doc. No. [1]. . . .
`Defendants [then] filed counterclaims seeking declarations that (1)
`[they] have not infringed the '170 Patent, and (2) the '170 Patent is
`invalid. See Doc. Nos. [17]-[19].
`
`Microwave Vision, S.A. v. ESCO Techs. Inc., No. 14-CV-1153-SCJ, 2015 WL
`
`11237099, at *1 (N.D. Ga. July 15, 2015) (“Markman Order”) (footnote
`
`omitted), reconsideration denied Microwave Vision, S.A. v. ETS-Lindgren
`
`Inc., No. 1:14-CV-1153-SCJ, 2016 WL 4111361 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2016)
`
`(“Reconsideration Order”).
`
`The Markman Order construed three terms in the 170 Patent:
`
`1. “network of probes” is construed to mean “multiple probes having
`a fixed and coplanar relationship to one another”
`
`2. “means for providing a plurality of measurements using the
`network of probes, the plurality of measurements corresponding to a
`plurality of angular positions of a given one of the network of probes
`relative to the test object” is construed as follows:
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 3 of 30
`
`Claimed Function:
`
`
`“providing a plurality of measurements using the network of
`probes, the plurality of measurements corresponding to a
`plurality of angular positions of a given one of the network of
`probes relative to the test object”
`
`Associated Structure:
`
`(1) “a mast that supports the object under test, and that extends
`radially from a base and along the main axis of support to an
`opposite end that is nearer the geometric center of the arc formed by
`the network of probes, and that pivots in a relative fashion with
`respect to the network of probes”
`
`(2) “a mast that supports the object under test, and that extends
`radially from a base and along the main axis of support to an
`opposite end that is nearer the geometric center of the arc formed by
`the network of probes, and with respect to which the network of
`probes pivots in a relative fashion”
`
`
`3. “means for pivoting one or more of the network of probes and the
`support about a point located in the plane formed by the network of
`probes or about a point located in the plane parallel to the plane
`formed by the network of probes to vary, between successive ones of
`the plurality of measurements, an angle formed between the given
`one of the network of probes and the main axis of the support by a
`fraction of the angular pitch of the network of probes so that a total
`number of measurements in the plurality of measurements is greater
`than a total number of probes in the network of probes” is construed
`as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Function:
`
`“pivoting the network of probes, the support, or both about a
`point located in the plane formed by the network of probes, or in
`a parallel plane”
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 4 of 30
`
`Structure (for Pivoting the Network of Probes):
`
`
`“an arc mounted on rollers and an electric motor drive”
`
`Structure (for Pivoting the Support):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“an electric motor, an actuator that extends more or less
`horizontally in the plane of the arc and is hinged to one end of
`the base, and a convex bottom surface on the base of a mast,
`which rests, by means of one or more rollers, on a
`complementary concave surface”
`
`
`2015 WL 11237099, at *18 (underlining added).
`
`
`
`Having argued that Claim 12’s “pivoting one or more of the network of
`
`probes and the support” language meant that the “means” must “pivot” both
`
`the “support” and “network of probes,”2 but not one or the other (Doc. 43 at
`
`16-21), ETS disagreed with the Court’s construction of Claim 12. It
`
`consequently moved for reconsideration, where it advanced the same
`
`argument again. See Doc. 62 at 7 (“ETS contends that [‘one or more of the
`
`network of probes and the support’] only means” that both the support and
`
`network can pivot, but not one or the other). ETS also insisted that the
`
`Markman Order failed to address its alternative argument that the same
`
`phrase suffered fatal indefiniteness issues because “it is unclear which
`
`
`2 ETS also argued that “one or more” applied only to “network of probes” such that
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
` [interpretation] is correct.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Court declined to rehash its Claim 12 construction, finding that ETS
`
`illuminated no clear error to justify reconsideration. Doc. 89 at 2 (“The Court
`
`finds Defendant’s motion essentially to be asking the Court to ‘give it another
`
`try’ which is not a permissible basis for a motion for reconsideration.”). It
`
`then noted that it considered both parties’ construction arguments (as well as
`
`all intrinsic evidence), and in doing so found that Claim 12’s functions
`
`included pivoting either the support, the network of probes, or both. Id. at 4.
`
`“Implicit in [the Markman Order] ruling, therefore, is a finding that the
`
`claim was not indefinite.” Id. More specifically, in rejecting ETS’ contrary
`
`argument, the Court made clear “that [Claim 12] was not indefinite because . .
`
`. in light of the specification and prosecution history, [it] informe[d] those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
`
`Id. Going further, the Court stated that it “specifically rejected [ETS’]
`
`argument that the patent failed to disclose and clearly link any structure that
`
`corresponds to [Claim 12’s] proposed function and therefore should be
`
`invalid for indefiniteness.” Id. at 5.
`
`As it litigated this case, ETS made the same Claim 12 construction
`
`
`5
`less than all probes moved at the same time.
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
` arguments in a parallel inter partes proceeding before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (PTAB). See Doc. 82-10 at 10 (“ETS asserts that the ‘one or
`
`more’ language [of the means for pivoting limitation] unambiguously refers
`
`to the network of probes,” and thus that “the claimed function of this
`
`limitation requires movement of the network of probes and the support”)
`
`(emphasis and alteration in original). The PTAB ultimately denied ETS’
`
`petition (more on that later), and in doing so concluded that it failed to
`
`identify a structure that linked to a function both plaintiffs and ETS ascribe to
`
`Claim 12—that the “means for pivoting,” at a minimum, “includes pivoting
`
`both the network of probes and the support.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Now, wielding the PTAB decision offensively, ETS moves for summary
`
`judgment on invalidity grounds. Doc. 82. It contends that, as the PTAB
`
`found, no structure in Claim 12 links to the claimed function of pivoting both
`
`the support and the network of probes.3 Doc. 82-1 at 22. That linkage failure,
`
`it says, creates indefiniteness that violates 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) & (f) which in
`
`turn fatally taints the 170 Patent. Id. at 25.
`
`
`3 Both parties agree that Claim 12 includes as a function pivoting the support and
`the network of probes (the “both” pivot). Their divergence comes because ETS
`insists that is Claim 12’s only function, while plaintiffs contend it also includes
`pivoting just the support, or just the network of probes.
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs, according to ETS, admitted as much by arguing, before this
`
`Court and the PTAB, that a claim “scope covering” a “both” pivot would
`
`produce an “imaginary system”
`
`that covers none of
`
`the patent’s
`
`embodiments. Id. at 27 (citing Doc. 42 at 6-7). “Nowhere” in their Markman
`
`briefing, says ETS, did plaintiffs “argue the patent describes an embodiment
`
`where both the network of probes and the support pivot.” Id. at 11. Nor did
`
`they “point to any disclosure associating or linking any structure to the dual,
`
`third function of pivoting both structures” (the network and support). Id. at
`
`11-12. Instead, plaintiffs pointed to language in the 170 Patent’s Summary of
`
`Invention describing the “relative tilting” of the network of probes and
`
`support, and asserted that such tilting can only occur “when only one body
`
`tilts ‘relative’ to the other.” Id. at 12. To ETS, that necessarily excludes both
`
`the network and support pivoting simultaneously. Doc. 88 at 8.
`
`ETS leans heavily on the PTAB decision, too. It urges the Court to
`
`adopt that body’s conclusion that the “170 Patent fails to clearly link
`
`corresponding structure to the function of pivoting both the network of
`
`probes and the support.” Doc. 82-1 at 22 (emphasis in original). Because
`
`PTAB’s analysis, though not aimed at invalidity issues, “tracks exactly the
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
` indefiniteness analysis the Court must apply here,” the Court, ETS insists,
`
`must find Claim 12 invalid “[u]nless [it] is prepared to disagree with the
`
`Patent Office.” Id. at 22-23.
`
`Finally, ETS contends that (1) Claim 12 violates § 112(b) “because the
`
`Court’s construction [of it] does not comport with what the applicant
`
`regarded as his invention” (Doc. 82-1 at 26);4 and (2) “even if the two separate
`
`embodiments [(the means for pivoting the support and network of probes)]
`
`could be combined somehow . . . the patent still would not describe enough
`
`structure for the system to work.” Id. at 28. That, says ETS, “is because
`
`software/hardware would be required to . . . actually move the support
`
`and/or probes . . . [and] coordinate the movement of the two structures.” Id.
`
`
`
`Opposing, plaintiffs contend that ETS’ motion is “in actuality,” not
`
`seeking summary judgment. Doc. 83 at 6. Instead, it “ask[s] this Court to
`
`[effectively] reconsider its construction of the ‘means for pivoting’ limitation
`
`of Claim 12, and to reverse the specific holding it set forth at page 46, footnote
`
`21 of its claim construction [Markman] opinion.” Id. “On that basis alone,”
`
`
`4 “By [plaintiffs’] admission, the patent was never intended to cover an embodiment
`in which both the support and the probes pivot, and any claim attempting to cover
`such an “imaginary” embodiment violates Section 112. Yet the Court has found
`claim 12 covers a system where both pivot. Claim 12 is therefore invalid due to
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
` say plaintiffs, ETS’ summary judgment “motion should be denied outright as
`
`an improper attempt to challenge” the Court’s previous reconsideration
`
`ruling. Id.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs also insist that ETS mischaracterized their Markman briefing
`
`and arguments before the PTAB. Specifically, their “imaginary system”
`
`argument never, as ETS urges, applied to “a system where both the support
`
`and network of probes pivot.” Doc. 83 at 11. Instead, it responded to ETS’
`
`contention that the “one or more” language in Claim 12 referred only to
`
`“network of probes,” not the support, such that fewer than all probes could
`
`pivot. That, say plaintiffs, created an imaginary system because moving fewer
`
`than all probes is “a capability that is impossible to provide using the
`
`structures disclosed in [the] 170 Patent specification.” Id. at 12 (quoting Doc.
`
`40 at 19). ETS therefore “has no basis for reading any of [plaintiffs’]
`
`statements as an admission that pivoting ‘both’ would constitute an
`
`‘imaginary’ embodiment.” Id. at 13.
`
`
`
`Beyond mischaracterizing plaintiffs’ arguments, ETS also, according to
`
`plaintiffs, inappropriately spun the Court’s Markman order by stating that it
`
`“found [that] the 170 patent does not disclose a system in which both the
`
`
`9
`[plaintiffs’] failure to set forth what MVG regarded as its invention.” Doc. 82-1 at 27.
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
` support and the probes pivot.” Doc. 83 at 14 (alteration and emphasis in
`
`original). Plaintiffs insist that, in reality, the Court held that “it appears
`
`undisputed from the parties proposed constructions . . . that pivoting both the
`
`‘network of probes’ and the ‘support’ can be achieved through some
`
`combination” of the two structures.” Id. at 15 (quoting Doc. 59 at 46 n.21).
`
`
`
`What’s more, say plaintiffs, ETS itself argued in its Markman briefing,
`
`contrary to its current position, that Claim 12 included the “both” pivot and
`
`that it “specifically identifie[d] structure corresponding to the pivoting
`
`functions.” Doc. 83 at 16 (quoting Doc. 41 at 23). ETS took the same tack in its
`
`briefing before the PTAB, where it contended that “the patent plainly
`
`contemplates that both [the support and network of probes] can move, as
`
`claim 12 covers.” Id. at 17 (quoting Doc. 82-7 at 29). “[T]hose prior
`
`positions,” plaintiffs contend, “may fairly be treated as binding admissions.”
`
`Id. at 16.
`
`
`
`The PTAB decision comes in for criticism as well. It “has no binding
`
`effect” on this Court, misstated and misapplied the law, expressly disclaimed
`
`an indefiniteness inquiry, and ruled based on a more limited record than that
`
`before this Court. See Doc. 83. Finally, plaintiffs urge summary judgment in
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
` their favor because (1) no genuine dispute exists that the 170 Patent covers the
`
`“both” pivot; (2) “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`to pivot both . . . the corresponding structure would be a combination of the
`
`disclosed structures;” and (3) no additional hardware or software is
`
`“necessary for performing the function of pivoting ‘the network of probes, the
`
`support, or both.’” Id. at 25-29.
`
`II. GOVERNING STANDARDS
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party establishes
`that, based upon the evidence presented, “there is no genuine dispute
`as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
`matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[T]he requirement that a dispute
`be ‘genuine’ means simply that there must be more than some
`metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Anderson v. Liberty
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 261 (1986) (citations and internal quotation
`marks omitted). The court views the record and draws all factual
`inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Carlson v.
`FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 787 F.3d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 2015).
`“If reasonable minds could differ on the inferences arising from
`undisputed facts, then a court should deny summary judgment.” Id. at
`1318 (quoting Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.
`1997)).
`
`Dean-Mitchell v. Reece, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 4756942, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept.
`
`13, 2016).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
` III. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Preliminary Concerns
`
`Before turning to the substance of either party’s arguments, the Court
`
`first addresses (1) plaintiffs’ contention that ETS plies a reconsideration
`
`request in the guise of a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 83 at 8), and (2)
`
`ETS’ alleged mischaracterization of plaintiffs’ Markman arguments and the
`
`Court’s own findings in the Markman and Reconsideration Orders.
`
`1.
`
`Reconsideration
`
`In its Markman briefing (and before the PTAB, for that matter), ETS
`
`argued that Claim 12’s function encompassed pivoting both the support and
`
`the network of probes, but not pivoting one or the other. See Doc. 41 at 6.
`
`The Court disagreed, and held that Claim 12’s “function . . . is ‘pivoting the
`
`network of probes, the support, or both.” Doc. 59 at 45. With nothing new to
`
`add, ETS nevertheless moved for reconsideration, repeating the same “it’s
`
`and, not and/or”5 argument. Doc. 62 at 7-8.
`
`
`5 ETS asked
`
`
`for clarification and/or reconsideration of the Court’s determination that the
`function of the “means for pivoting one or more of the network of probes and
`the support about a point located in the plane formed by the network of
`probes. . . .” As briefed to the Court, Microwave contends the highlighted
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court rejected that argument a second time. Doc. 89 at 3-4. In
`
`doing so, it noted that “[i]mplicit in [its] ruling . . . is a finding that [Claim 12]
`
`was not indefinite.” Id. at 4. “The Court found that the claim was not
`
`indefinite because ‘the patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`
`invention with reasonable certainty.’ See Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova
`
`Chemicals Corp. (Canada), 803 F.3d 620, 634 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting
`
`Nautilus. Inc. v. Biosig Instruments. Inc.. 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124, 2129 (2014)).”
`
`Id. As noted above, the Court also “specifically rejected Defendants’
`
`argument that the patent failed to disclose and clearly link any structure that
`
`corresponds to the proposed function and therefore should be invalid for
`
`indefiniteness.” Id. at 5.
`
`In the present summary judgment motion, ETS argues to the contrary,
`
`again. See Doc. 82-1 at 8 (“[T]he patent does not clearly link structure to a
`
`system in which both the support and probes can pivot.”). Indeed, its entire
`
`
`language means “and/or” such that the probes can pivot, the support can
`pivot, or both can pivot. ETS contends that the highlighted phrase only
`means “and”, or alternatively, the phrase is indefinite because it is unclear
`which is correct.
`
`Doc. 62 at 7.
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
` motion turns on whether Claim 12 definitively links function to structure.
`
`Since the Court already decided that precise issue, rehashing it here
`
`constitutes reconsideration.
`
`A motion for reconsideration is appropriate only where there is: (1)
`newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change
`in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.
`Jersawitz v. People TV, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 1999); Pres.
`Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. U .S. Army Corps of
`Eng'rs, 916 F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995). A motion for
`reconsideration should not be used to present the Court with
`arguments already heard and dismissed, or to offer new legal theories
`or evidence that could have been presented in the previously filed
`motion. Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1259 (N.D. Ga. 2003);
`see also Preserve Endangered Areas, 916 F. Supp. at 1560 (“A motion
`for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving party and their
`counsel to instruct the court on how the court ‘could have done it
`better’ the first time.”).
`
`Bryant v. Jones, No. 1:04-CV-2462-WSD, 2007 WL 113959, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Jan.
`
`10, 2007).
`
`
`
`Local Rule 7.2(E) contains additional requirements. Parties may not
`
`seek reconsideration more than twenty-eight “days after entry of the
`
`[challenged] order or judgment.” N.D. Ga. L.R. 7.2(E). And under no
`
`circumstances may they “file motions to reconsider the court’s denial of a
`
`prior motion for reconsideration.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Strict adherence to that rule would neutralize those portions of ETS’
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 15 of 30
`
`
`
` motion that address whether Claim 12 sufficiently links its function to
`
`structure since the Reconsideration Order already put that issue to bed (a
`
`sufficient link in fact exists, Doc. 89 at 5). It nevertheless remains true that, as
`
`ETS notes, the Court has never considered the PTAB decision—which found
`
`insufficient linkage—before now.6 Doc. 88 at 12.
`
`
`
`The opinion of an expert body like the PTAB can carry significant
`
`persuasive weight when courts deal with technically complex issues, like
`
`patents. And, though they need not do so in all cases, courts can engage in “a
`
`rolling claim construction, in which the court revisits and alters its
`
`interpretation of the claim terms as its understanding of the technology
`
`evolves.” Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d
`
`1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Although the Court hesitates to give ETS a third
`
`bite at the apple, ignoring the PTAB decision entirely smacks of folly, too. It
`
`therefore will address that inter partes review insofar as it disagrees with the
`
`Court’s construction of Claim 12. All other issues previously decided—
`
`
`6 The Court did not decide ETS’ August 2015 reconsideration motion (Doc. 62) until
`February 2, 2016 (Doc. 89). ETS’ PTAB-infused motion for summary judgment came
`almost two months before that decision. Doc. 82 (filed December 8, 2015). But
`because the reconsideration motion predated the PTAB decision (issued in October
`2015), the Court did not consider the latter in deciding the former.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 16 of 30
`
`
`
` namely, that “means for pivoting one or more of the network of probes and
`
`the support” encompasses pivoting the network, the support, or both—
`
`remain so.
`
`2.
`
`ETS’ Misconstruction of the Court’s Findings and Plaintiffs’
`Arguments
`
`
`ETS repeatedly asserts that plaintiffs “argued to the Court [that] . . . a
`
`system where both the support and network of probes pivot is imaginary,”
`
`and that the Court so found. See, e.g., Doc. 82-1 at 7 (“According to
`
`[plaintiffs],” a system where both structures pivot is “imaginary”) (emphasis
`
`in original); id. (“[T]he Court’s Markman order relies upon [plaintiffs’]
`
`“imaginary” argument in ruling against ETS’s position.”). It’s true that the
`
`Court “agrees with Plaintiffs . . . that [ETS has] advanced ‘a construction of
`
`‘one or more of . . .’ that would make Claim 12 cover an imaginary system
`
`while excluding both disclosed embodiments.” Doc. 59 at 45. But that in no
`
`way means that plaintiffs ever argued, or the Court ever accepted, that a
`
`construction of Claim 12 where both structures pivot creates an “imaginary
`
`system.”
`
`To be clear: the “imaginary system” is one where “one or more” applies
`
`only to the “network of probes,” not also to the support. That construction,
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 17 of 30
`
`
`
` (which ETS pushed during claim construction and before the PTAB, who also
`
`rejected it), at least based on the patent as written, cannot exist because the
`
`specification and summary of invention make clear that the network of probes
`
`moves as one structure, not each probe individually.7 To construe Claim 12
`
`differently would indeed create the aforementioned “imaginary system” that
`
`effectively reads the support and network embodiments out of the 170 Patent.
`
`ETS also claims that plaintiffs argued that the support and network
`
`cannot both move (Doc. 82-1 at 7), and that this Court agreed. Id. at 9. Not
`
`so. Plaintiffs consistently argued that Claim 12 encompasses a “both” pivot.
`
`See, e.g., Doc. 42 at 6 (“Plaintiffs’ proposed construction would cover both
`
`disclosed embodiments (as well as their combination). . . .”) (emphasis added).
`
`They never argued that moving both is impossible. At best (or worst,
`
`depending on perspective), they used the same language from the Summary
`
`of Invention to argue for each embodiment (Figures 1 and 2 in the 170 Patent)
`
`pivoting the support and network of probes individually and pivoting both.
`
`See Doc. 42 at 9.
`
`
`7 See Doc. 40 at 19 (“[I]f Defendants’ proposed construction were adopted, claim 12
`would describe a system in which a single probe could be moved along the arc while
`the remainder of the probes stayed stationary—a capability that is impossible to
`provide using the structures disclosed in ’170 Patent specification.”).
`17
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 18 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`Neither did the Court find that “the 170 Patent does not disclose a
`
`system in which both the support and probes pivot.” Doc. 82-1 at 9. In the
`
`Markman Order, the Court construed Claim 12’s function to include
`
`“pivoting the network of probes, the support, or both. . . .” Doc. 59 at 45. The
`
`Reconsideration Order reiterated that finding. See Doc. 89 at 4 (“The Court
`
`accepted Plaintiffs’ arguments, thereby finding the functions to be ‘and/or’
`
`and rejected Defendant’s argument for ‘and’ only.”). Any argument that the
`
`Court held otherwise—and any derivative conclusions—fall flat.
`
`So there is no confusion moving forward, the Court explicitly finds
`
`(again) that:
`
`(a)
`
`Plaintiffs never “admitted” or argued that Claim 12 does not
`
`include a “both” pivot.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`The Court never adopted such a construction.
`
`“Imaginary system” refers only to that construction of Claim 12
`
`ETS advances in which the phrase “one or more” applies to “network of
`
`probes,” but not “the support.”
`
`(d)
`
`“[O]ne or more of the network of probes and the support,” means
`
`“pivoting the network of probes, the support, or both.” It does not
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 19 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`mean that “one or more” of the probes in the network pivots.
`
`With those findings made clear, the Court proceeds to address the PTAB
`
`decision and the parties’ arguments that do not offend the retrictions on
`
`reconsideration outlined above.
`
`B.
`
`The PTAB Decision
`
`
`
`Before the PTAB, the parties made the same arguments they make here.
`
`ETS argued that Claim 12’s function “requires the movement of the network
`
`of probes and the support,” while plaintiffs contended that it covered
`
`“pivoting the network of probes, the support, or both.” Doc. 82-10 at 10
`
`(emphasis in original). Because they both agreed that the function included
`
`the “both” pivot, the PTAB considered only whether Claim 12 included
`
`“corresponding structure for [that] claimed function.” Id. at 11.
`
`
`
`After observing that “neither party expressly state[d] that the
`
`combination of structures disclosed in Figures 1 and 2 of the 170 Patent
`
`corresponds to the [‘both’ pivot],” the PTAB found ETS’ inter partes petition—
`
`not the 170 Patent itself—“deficient for failing to identify structure that
`
`corresponds to the full scope of the claimed function.” Doc. 82-10 at 12.
`
`“Specifically, ETS does not argue expressly that the structure corresponding
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 20 of 30
`
`
`
` to the dual function of pivoting the network of probes and pivoting the
`
`support is the combination of these structures disclosed in Figures 1 and 2 of
`
`the ’170 patent.”8 Id. at 13 (emphasis in original). The PTAB went on to note
`
`that the patent’s silence on Figures 1 and 2’s mutual exclusivity “is
`
`insufficient to ‘clearly associate’ the combination of” those two structures. Id.
`
`
`
`Going further, the PTAB also found that the 170 Patent’s Specification
`
`itself failed to “clearly associate the combination of separate structures
`
`disclosed in Figures 1 and 2 as corresponding to the claimed dual functions.”
`
`Doc. 82-10 at 14. It rejected plaintiffs’ “relative tilting” argument because that
`
`Summary of Invention language included “no mention of the structures
`
`disclosed in Figures 1 and 2, nor their combination.” Id. Because “[t]he 170
`
`patent Specification does not describe and identify an apparatus combination
`
`that performs both pivoting the network of probes and pivoting the support,
`
`neither
`
`the claimed function proposed by ETS nor [plaintiffs] has
`
`corresponding structure.” Id. at 16. And because both parties’ Claim 12
`
`constructions included a “both” pivot, the PTAB found no corresponding
`
`structure “irrespective of which construction [it] might adopt.” Id. at 17.
`
`
`8 The PTAB, as this Court held, also rejected ETS’ argument that “one or more”
`referred solely to “network of probes” such that “less than all of the probes may be
`20
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 21 of 30
`
`
`
` Importantly, and because its authorizing statute limits inter partes review to
`
`patentability determinations,
`
`the PTAB
`
`expressly disclaimed any
`
`indefiniteness analysis. Id. at 3 n.1 (“[W]e do not make any determinations of
`
`indefiniteness.”).
`
`
`
`At bottom, and regardless of whether the analysis is framed in
`
`patentability or indefiniteness terms, the PTAB and this Court simply
`
`disagree that the 170 Patent fails to “clearly associate” the structures in
`
`Figures 1 and 2 with the “both” pivot function. Compare Doc. 89 at 5 (“The
`
`Court specifically rejected [ETS’] argument that the patent failed to disclose
`
`and clearly link any structure that corresponds to the proposed function and
`
`therefore should be invalid for indefiniteness.”) (citing the 170 Patent’s
`
`“relative tilting” language)), with Doc. 82-10 at 14 (“[T]he 170 patent
`
`Specification does not ‘clearly associate’ the combination of structures . . . as
`
`corresponding to the claimed dual function of” the “both” pivot) (rejecting the
`
`“relative tilting” language). And because neither binding precedent, the
`
`parties’ arguments before this Court, nor the analytical heft of the PTAB
`
`decision demand that this Court reverse course, its prior indefiniteness
`
`finding stands.
`
`
`21
`moved.” Doc. 82-10 at 13 n.8.
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01153-SCJ Document 138 Filed 09/20/16 Page 22 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`As t

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket