In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1016
`
`Publication 4957
`September 2019
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`

`

`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`COMMISSIONERS FOR INITIAL
`PROCEEDING
`
`Rhonda Schmidtlein, Chairman
`David Johanson, Vice Chairman
`Irving Wiliamson, Commissioner
`Meredith Broadbent, Commissioner
`
`COMMISSIONERS FOR
`MODIFICATION PROCEEDING
`
`Irving Williamson, Commissioner
`Meredith Broadbent, Commissioner
`Rhonda Schmidtlein, Commissioner
`Jason Kearns, Commissioner
`
`Address all communications to
`Secretary to the Commission
`United States International Trade Commission
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`

`

`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`Washington, DC 20436
`www.usitc.gov
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1016
`
`Publication 4957
`
`September 2019
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1016
`(Modification Proceeding)
`
`COM1\/IISSIONOPINION
`
`This opinion sets forth the Connnission’s final determination in the above-captioned
`
`modification proceeding. The Commission has determined that the subject redesigned wireless
`
`garage door opener products (“redesigned products") imported and sold by Respondents
`
`Techtronic Industries Co. of New Territories, Hong Kong; Techtronic Industries North America,
`
`Inc. of'Hu11Wil]e,Maryland; One World Technologies, Inc. of Anderson, South Carolina; OWT
`
`Industries, Inc. of Piekcns, South Carolina; and ET Technology (Wuxi) Co. ofZhejiang, China
`
`(collectively “Techtronic") do not infringe asserted claims I-4, 7- I2, I5, and I6 of U.S_Patent
`
`No. 7. 16 I.3 I9 (“the ’319 patent”), and therefore are not covered by the limited exclusion order
`
`(“LEO”) or cease and desist orders (“CD05”) issued in the underlying investigation. An order
`
`modifying the LEO and CDOs to exempt Techtronic‘s redesigned products will be issued
`
`separately.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Underlying Investigation
`
`The Commission instituted the underlying investigation on August 9, 2016, based on a
`
`complaint filed by Chamberlain ofEln-tburst, Illinois. 81 Fed. Reg. 52713 (Aug. 9, 2016). The
`
`complaint alleged a violation of I9 U.S.C. § 1337, as amended (“Section 337”), through the
`
`importation, sale for iinportation, or sale in United States after importation of certain garage door
`
`openers that allegedly infringe one or more of the asserted claims of the ‘319 patent as well as
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,339,336 (“the ’336 patent”), and 7,196,611 (“the ’6ll patent”). Id. The ’6l1
`
`patent was withdrawn after institution and tenninated from the investigation. Order No. 28 (May
`
`3, 2017), not rev ‘d,Comm’n Notice (May 31, 2017). The notice of investigation named
`
`Techtronic as respondents.‘ 81 Fed. Reg. 52713. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`
`(“OUlI") was not named as a party to the investigation. Id.
`
`In pertinent part, the '3l9 patent, as discussed in more detail in Section IV.A, inf}-a,is
`
`directed to a garage door opener system that includes a motor drive unit with a controller, a wall
`
`console with a second controller, and a “digital data bus" that connects the controllers in the
`
`motor drive unit and wall console?
`
`"319 patent at Abstract, 7:34-39 (claim 1), 8:16-1 (claim 9).
`
`Chamberlain accused Techtronic‘s RYOBI brand GDl25, GD200, and GDZOOAgarage door
`
`openers of infringing the ’319 patent. RX-601C (Huggins) at Q/A 12.
`
`The then-presiding administrative lawjudge (“ALJ”) held a technology tutorial and
`
`Marianna hearing on December 20, 2016, and issued his claim construction order on January 26,
`
`2017. Order No. 13 (Jan. 26, 2017). With respect to the ’3]9 patent, the ALJ construed “wall
`
`console“ to require the inclusion of “a passive infrared detector.” Id. at 18. As a result, the ALJ
`
`granted Techtronic’s motion for summary determination ofnon-infringement of the '3 19 patent
`
`because the wall console of Teehtronic’s accused products does not include a passive infrared
`
`detector. Order No. 23 (Mar. 27, 2017).
`
`1
`
`Ryobi Technologies, Inc. was also initially named as a respondent but was later terminated
`from the investigation. Order No. 6 (Oct. 17, 2016), nor rev ‘d,Comm‘n Notice (Nov. 7, 2016).
`
`2The ‘3l9 patent uses the term “microcontroller” in claim 1 and “controller” in claim 9. The
`differences between a “mieroeontroller” and “controller,” if any, are not pertinent to the
`modification proceeding or this final determination. See RX-0474C (Lipoff) at Q/A 79 (a
`microcontroller is a type of controller). For ease of presentation, the Commission will use the
`term “controller” unless quoting from the claims, the RD, or other document.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`On May l-3, 2017, the ALJ held an evidentiary hearing with respect to the remaining
`
`‘336 patent. Initial Determination (“ID”) at 2 (Oct. 23, 20l 7). On May 3, 2017, the Commission
`
`detennined to review the ALJ’s claim combustion and summary determination of non­
`
`infringement of the ’3l 9 patent. Cotnrrfn Notice at 2 (May 3_2017). On review, the
`
`Commission construed the claim term “wall console" to have its plain and ordinary meaning as a
`
`“wall-mounted control unit,” vacated the summary determination of non-infringement, and
`
`remanded the ’3l9 patent for further proceedings. Id; Comtn’n Op. at 19 (May 5, 2017).
`
`On July I2-13, 2017, the AL] held a second evidentiaiy hearing on issues relating to the
`
`remanded *319 patent.
`
`ID at 2. On October 23, 2017, the AL] issued a final 11)with respect to
`
`both the '3l9 and ‘336 patents. Id. at 5, 294. In pertinent part, the ID finds that Techtronic
`
`violated Section 337 by infringing the asserted claims of the ’3l9 patent, but it finds no
`
`infringement and hence no violation with respect to the ‘336 patent. Id. at 294.
`
`The Commission did not review, and thereby adopted, the ID’s claim construction and
`
`infringement findings with respect to the ’3l9 patent and limited its review to invalidity. See
`
`Comnfn Notice at 3-4 (Dee. 22, 2017). The Commission ultimately affirtned the ID‘s findings
`
`that Respondents failed to show that the ’3l9 patent claims are invalid. Cornn1’nNotice at 4
`
`(Mar. 23, 2018). The Commission concluded that Techtronic violated Section 337 through the
`
`importation, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation of garage door
`
`openers that infringe assorted claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 16 the ‘319 patent. Id. Accordingly, the
`
`Commission issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CD05”)
`
`prohibiting Teehtronic from further importing or selling infringing products in the United States.
`
`See 1'd.;Comrn’n Op. at 34-38 (Mar. 23, 2018). Chamberlain and Techtronic have cross­
`
`appealed the Cornmission‘s final determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`3
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Circuit, where those appeals are currently pending. The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Int '1Trade
`
`Comm '11,Appeal Nos. 18-2002, 18-2191 (consolidated).
`
`B.
`
`Tecliti-onic’s Redesigned Garage Door Opener Prodttctg
`
`In the original Techtronic products at issue in the underlying investigation, the controllers
`
`in the indoor keypad (or “wall console") and head unit (or “motor drive unit”) communicate with
`
`each other via a wired, conductive connection. RX-600C (Lipoft) at Q/A 167-169; RX-601C
`
`(Huggins) at Q/A 22, 29, 35-38; RX-261 at ITC-TTl000O05S32 (wired keypad)" This wired
`
`Connection in the original products satisfied the “digital data bus“ limitations of the *319 patent
`
`claims, and thus was part of the final determination of infiingement. ID at 134-35, 294.
`
`In September 2017, while the investigation was still before the ALJ, Techtronic decided
`
`to redesign its garage door openers to avoid infringement by eliminating the wired connection
`
`between the controllers that corresponded to the claimed “digital data bus." RX-600C (Lipofi) at
`
`Q/A 170-71, 182, 183; RX-601C (Huggins) at Q/A 23-24, 44. Teehtronic replaced the original
`
`keypad and its wired connection to the motor control unit with a new wireless keypad that
`
`communicates via radio frequency signals to a wireless receiver in the motor drive unit. RX­
`
`ISOOC(Lipoff) at Q/A 159, 170-71, I76-178, 182-83; RX-601C (Huggins) at Q/A 20-22, 29, 39­
`
`42, 64; RX-609 at ITC-MMOD-00000499 (wireless keypad); RX-610; Hr’g Tr. (Lipofi) at
`
`|33:2-8. The wireless receiver is connected to the controller in the motor drive unit via two short
`
`conductive wires. RX-600C (Lipoff) at QIA 172-75; RX-601C (Huggins) at Q/A 43, 53-57; RX­
`
`616; RX-618; CX-1656C (Davis) at QIA 52-53.“ Chamberlain characterizes the connection
`
`3 Mr. Lipoff is a technical expert for Tcchtronic. RX-600C (Lipoff) at Q/A l-3. Mr. Huggins is
`Senior Vice President of Product Development at One World Technologies, one of the named
`Teclitroriic respondents, and was in charge of developing Techtronic‘s wired and wireless garage
`door products. RX-601C (Huggins) at Q/A l-9, 11-13.
`
`4 Dr. Davis is a technical expert for Chamberlain. CX-1656C (Davis) at Q/A l-3.
`
`4
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`between the controllers in the keypad and motor drive unit in the redesigned products as “part­
`
`wired, part-wireless.” CX-1656C (Davis) at Q/A 51. Techtronie‘s redesigned products include
`
`its RYOBI brand GDl26 and GD.’/Z01garage door openers. RX-601C (Huggins) at QIA I3.
`
`As a result of its redesign, Techtronic’s wireless keypad no longer draws electrical power
`
`from the motor drive unit via a wired connection, as its original wired keypad did. RX-600C
`
`(Lipofi) at Q/A 193-95, 197, 206-09, 213; Hr‘g Tr. (Davis) at 201;?-202;1s. Techtronic’s new
`
`wireless keypad is powered instead by replaceable AA batteries. RX-600C (Lipoff) at Q/A 177,
`
`196; RX~O616;RX-0618; Hr‘g Tr. (Lipofi) at l26:1S-21. Additionally, the new wireless keypad
`
`cannot receive data from the head unit. RX-0600C (Lipoff) at Q/A 171 (“Unlike the wired
`
`keypad in the Original GDOs [garage door openers] that utilized two-way wired cornrnunication
`
`between the head unit and keypad, the wireless keypad in the Redesigned GDOS uses wireless.
`
`one-way comrnunication. In particular, the wireless keypad broadcasts messages that are picked
`
`up by the receiver located at the head ur1it.”).
`
`In March 2018, Techtronic completed its redesign and began selling its wireless garage
`
`door openers to Home Depot. RX-601C (Huggins) at Q/A 26-28. Techtronic, however, did not
`
`present its redesigned products for adjudication in the underlying investigation. See 83 Fed. Reg
`
`at I35} 7. As a result. neither the AL] nor the Commission considered during the original
`
`investigation whether the controllers in the wall console and motor drive unit in Techtronie’S
`
`redesigned products are “connected . . . by means of a digital data bus” or whether those
`
`redesigned products infringe the ’3I9 patent.
`
`C.
`
`The Modification Proceeding
`
`1.
`
`Evidentiary proceedings
`
`On August 2, 2018, Techtronic filed a petition with the Commission to institute a
`
`rnodificatjoii proceeding, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.§ ]337(k), to determine whether its redesigned
`
`5
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`products infringe the ‘3 I9 patent and are covered by the remedial orders issued in the underlying
`
`investigation. Chamberlain tiled an opposition to the petition on August 13, 2018.
`
`On September 4, 2018, the Commission issued a notice of its detemiination to institute
`
`the modification proceeding. 83 Fed. Reg. 45676 (Sept. 10, 2018). The Commission delegated
`
`the proceeding to the chief administrative law judge (“CALI”), who assigned it to his own
`
`docket. Id.; Notice to the Parties (Sept. 5, 2018). OUII was not named as a party to the
`
`modification proceeding. 83 Fed. Reg. at 45677.
`
`On September 24, 2018, the CALJ issued a procedural schedule, which included
`
`approximately seven weeks for fact and expert discovery and a month for prehearing motions,
`
`exhibit submissions, and preheating briefing, Order No. 40 at 1-2 (Sept. 24, 2018). The CAL]
`
`held an evidentiary hearing on December 12, 2018, as scheduled. Recommended Determination
`
`(“RD”) at 3 (Apr. 22, 20 l9). Due to the partial shutdown of the federal government in January
`
`2019, the CALI extended the deadline for issuing the RD from March l l, 2019, to April 22,
`
`2019. Order No, 48 (Jan. 31, 2019). The Commission subsequently extended the target date for
`
`completing the modification proceeding to July 22, 2019. Con1rn‘nNotice (Mar. 4, 2019).
`
`2.
`
`The Recommended Determination
`
`On April 22, 2019, the CALJ issued the subject RD, finding that Techtronic’s redesigned
`
`products do not infringe because the controllers in the wall console and motor drive unit are not
`
`“connected . . . by means of a digital data bus." RD at 34, 38-39, 45-46.
`
`Although the RD extensively reviews the arguments and evidence submitted by the
`
`parties, it did not rely on them. Sea generally id. at l-34, 44. Instead, the RD relies on
`
`statements Chamberlain made in a legal brief and expert declaration it submitted during an fitter‘
`
`partes review {"lPR”_)of the ‘3l 9 patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO")
`
`6
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
`
`Id. at 38-43 (discussing RD EX.l'lS.A-D).5 The RD
`
`finds that Chamberlain distinguished its invention from U.S. Patent No. 5,530,896 (“Gilbert”)
`
`(RD Exh. A) by limiting the scope of the term “being connected . . . by means of a digital data
`
`bus” to “requtre[] a physical connection between microcontrollers” in the wall console and motor
`
`drive unit. Ia‘.at 43 (discussing RD Exhs. C, D); see also id. at 42-43 (discussing disavowal of
`
`claim scope). Chamberlain, the RD finds, effectively disavowed wireless connections, because
`
`“[3] wireless communication path is the Opposite of 3 physical one, involving a host of different
`
`structures, protocols, and design considerations.” Id. at 42-45 (citing RX-600C (Lipoff) at Q/A
`
`223-24). As a result, the RD finds “there can be no dispute that the Redesigned GDOS do not
`
`literally infringe the ’3l 9 patent as there is no physical connection between the rnicrocontrollers
`
`ofthe ‘wall console’ and ‘motor drive unit.” Id. at 45; see also id. at 34, 33-39.
`
`The RD also finds that Tecl-itronic’sredesigned products “cannot infringe by doctrine of
`
`equivalents as there is no structure within the products that accomplishes the same function or
`
`result of a physical connection between microcontrollers, which [Chamberlain] implicitly
`
`acknowledges.” Id. at 45.
`
`ln the altemative, the RD finds that even if the wireless products were
`
`found to practice the same “function” and “result” as a wired connection by communicating
`
`digital data between the microcontrollers, the wireless products accomplish those results in a
`
`substantially different “way.” Id.
`
`5The documents from the IPR (IPRZOI7-00126) addressed in the RD are:
`
`I RD Exh. A: U.S. Patent No. 5,530,896 ("Gilbert,” which Techtronic asserted as allegedly
`invalidating prior art);
`I RD Exh. B: Techtronic’s Petition for Inter Par-res Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,319;
`
`I RD Exh. C: Patent Owner's [Cl1a1nberlain’s]Supplemental Response; and
`
`0 RD Exh. D: Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis W [Chamberlaitfs technical expert].
`
`7
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Having found that Techtronic’s redesigned products do not infringe claims I or 9, the RD
`
`finds they do not infringe dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15, and 16. Id. at 46. The RD also
`
`finds the redesigned products do not infringe claims 7, 8, 15, and 16, literally or by equivalence.
`
`for the separate reason that their wireless keypads do not draw power from the motor drive unit
`
`“via power conductors of the data bus,” as required by claims 7 and I5 and incorporated into
`
`dependent claims 8 and 16. Id. Techtronic’s indoor keypads are powered instead by internal,
`
`replaceable AA batteries, which do not perform the same function, way, or result “as power
`
`coming through a wired line from an extemal shared source," according to the RD. Id.
`
`The RD “acknowledges that the aforementioned petition for inter parres review, Gilbert
`
`p1'iOrart reference, patent owner supplemental response, and patent owner expert declaration
`
`[RD Exhs. A-D] were not included on the parties’ exhibit lists, as opposed to other documents
`
`from the IPR proceeding which were included.” Id. at 43. Nonetheless, the RD takes “judicial
`
`notice of the facts of what was stated or disclosed in each of these four documents" under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 20l(b), because, in its view, they are “not subject to reasonable
`
`dispute.” Id. (collecting cases). Also, the IPR documents “are of primary relevance to the
`
`central issue in this proceeding ~ the scope of ‘being connected . . . by means ofa digital data
`
`bus —as they are part of the ‘3 19 patent‘s intrinsic record,” according to the RD.“ Id. at 44.
`
`The RD concludes that Techtronic’s redesigned products do not infringe the *319 patent.
`
`either literally or by equivalents. Id. at 45-46. The RD recommends “that the limited exclusion
`
`5 The PTAB ultimately found that claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, and 15 of the ’319 patent —but not claims
`8 or 16 —are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See One World Techns, Inc. v. The
`Chamberlain GVOUP,Inc, [PR20l7-00126, Final Written Decision at 4, 2018 WL 5310166, at
`*31 (PTAB Oct. 24, 2018){pub1ic version), on appeal, Appeal Nos. 19-1809, 19-1851 (Fed.
`Cir.) (consolidated). Techtronic sent a copy of that decision to the CALJ on October 17, 2018.
`Chamberlain objected to Techtronic’s submission of the PTAB decision as improper and
`irrelevant to the modification proceeding in a letter it sent to the CAL] dated October 18, 2018.
`
`8
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`order[] and cease and desist orders be modified so as to not apply to Respondents’ Redesigned
`
`GDOS which lack a physical connection between a microcontroller contained within a ‘wall
`
`console’ and a microcontroller contained within a ‘motor drive unit.'” Id. at 46.
`
`3.
`
`Review of the RD
`
`On May 3, 2019, Chamberlain filed objections to the RD, arguing that it was improper to
`
`rely on [PR documents that were not in the evidentiary record or on legal arguments contained
`
`therein because they are subject to dispute. See Complainants Comments on the Recommended
`
`Determination at 3, S-10 (May 3, 2019) (“Chamberlain‘s Comments"). Chamberlain further
`
`argued that the RD errs in interpreting the IPR documents because Chamberlain purportedly
`
`distinguished Gilbert because it did not disclose a digital data format, not because it disclosed a
`
`wireless connection, as the RD finds. Id. at 3-4, 11-14. Techtronic did not file a reply.
`
`On June 7, 2019, the Commission determined to review the subject RD. See Comrn’n
`
`Notice at 2-3 (June 7, 2019). The Commission asked the parties to brief two questions as to
`
`whether a wireless connection is a “conductor,” and whether the arguments Chamberlain made in
`
`the LPRdocuments relied on by the ALI are substantially the same as the arguments it made in
`
`other documents from the IPR or elsewhere that were part of the evidentiary record before the
`
`Commission. See id. The parties filed their initial responses to the Commission’s questions on
`
`June 20, 2019.7 The parties filed their replies to each other’s responses on June 27, 2019.“
`
`7 See Con-iplainanfs Response to Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review
`(June 20, 2019) t“Charnberlai11’sResp”); Respondents‘ Submission Regarding Issues Under
`Review (June 20, 2019) (“Techtronids Resp”).
`3 Complainant’s Reply to Respondents’ Response to Request for Written Submissions on Issues
`Under Review (June 27, 2019) (“Chamber1ain’s Reply"); Respondents’ Reply to Complainanfs
`Submission Regarding Issues Under Review (June 27, 2019) (“Techtronic‘s Reply”).
`
`9
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD FOR MODIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ORDERS
`
`Commission Rule 2l0.76(a)( 1) provides that:
`
`Whenever any person believes that changed conditions of fact or law, or the
`public interest require that an exclusion order, cease and desist order, or consent
`order, be modified or set aside, in whole or in part, such person may request,
`pursuant to section 337(k)( 1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, that the Commission make
`a determination that the conditions which led to the issuance of the exclusion
`order, cease and desist order, or consent order no longer exist. The Commission
`may also on its own initiative consider such action. The request shall state the
`changes desired and the changed circumstances or public interest warranting such
`action, shall include materials and argument in support thereof, and shall he
`sewed on all parties to the investigation in which the exclusion order, cease and
`desist order, or consent order was issued.
`
`19 C.F.R. §2l0.76(a)(l);
`
`see also I9 U.S.C. § l337(k).
`
`The party petitioning for modification or rescission of a remedial order hears the burden
`
`of proof if that party was previously found to be in violation of Section 337 and is seeking
`
`modification of the remedial order(s) issued in that investigation.
`
`l9 C.F.R. § 2l0.76(a)(2). The
`
`Commission may grant such relief “on the basis of new evidence or evidence that could not have
`
`been presented at the prior proceeding or on grounds that would permit relief from a judgment or
`
`order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. § 2l0.76(b).
`
`Upon receipt of a petition, the Commission may institute a proceeding to modify or
`
`rescind the remedial order(s). 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.76(b). The Commission may delegate the matter
`
`to the chief AL] for designation of a presiding ALI, who may hold a hearing and afford
`
`interested persons the opportunity to appear and he heard. Ia’. The ALJ shall then certify a
`
`recommended determination to the Commission. Id.
`
`The parties may submit comments on the RD, similar to petitioning for review of an ID
`
`issued during the violation phase. Id. § 2l0.76(c). The Commission makes its deterrnination as
`
`to whether to modify the remedial orders based upon the evidentiary record developed in the
`
`modification proceeding. See id. § 2l0.76(b). The Commission will consider the findings and
`
`I0
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`recommendations in the AI_J‘sRD in making its determination ofwhether to modify the
`
`remedial orders, but it is not required to defer to those findings, as it does in reviewing factual
`
`findings in an ID. Compare id. § 2] 0.43(b)( 1). The Commission has all the powers it would
`
`have in making me initial decision. See 5 U.S.C.
`
`55'/(b).
`
`Ill.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Section 337 prohibits, inter cilia, “[t]he importation into the United States, tl1esale for
`
`importation, or the sale within the United States afier importation . . . of articles that infringe a
`
`valid and enforceable United States patent . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(l)(B).
`
`Infiingement
`
`is
`
`found where an accused product or process practices each and every limitation of a patent claim.
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Cross Medical Products. Inc. v. Medtronic‘
`
`S'qfamor'DcmeI:,Iric, 424 F.3d 1293, l3lO-ll
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The first step of any infringement analysis is to construe, or interpret, disputed terms in
`
`the asserted patent claims. SqfeTCm'e Mfg., Inc. v. Tele-Made, .lnc., 497 F.3d 1262, 1268 (Fed.
`
`Cir. ZOU7).Claim construction “begin[s] with and remain[s] centered on the language of the
`
`claims themselves.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Syn, Iitct, 329 F.3d 823, S30 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Claim terms are normally construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the
`
`art, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Coiitirienrai
`
`Circuits LLC v. Intel Com, 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips v. AWH,415 F.3d
`
`I303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (err bcmc)). ln cases where a claim term does not have a
`
`particular meaning in the relevant technical art, its construction may involve little more than
`
`applying widely accepted meanings of commonly understood words. PITHIIPS,415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`But where a claim term has a specialized meaning, it is necessary to determine what a person
`
`skilled in the art would have understood the disputed claim language to mean. Ia’.
`
`1 l
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`The Commission looks primarily to intrinsic sources. :'.e.,the language of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the specification (of which the claims are a part), and the patent’s
`
`prosecution history, to determine the meaning of a claim term and whether the inventor used it in
`
`an idiosyncratic manner. See CoriririenfalCircuits, 915 F.3d at 796. The specification may also
`
`indicate whether the inventor intended to give a special meaning to a claim term that differs from
`
`its original meaning or, alternatively, to disclaim or disavow some measure of claim scope. Id.
`
`(discussing Phillips, 4| 5 F.3d at 1316). As a general rule, embodiments or examples in the
`
`specification may shed light on the meaning of claim terms, but they should not be read into the
`
`claims as Limitationswhere it is not necessary to do so. Mar-kman, 52 F.3d at 978-79.
`
`The Commission should also consider the patenfs prosecution history when it is in
`
`evidence, as it provides contemporaneous evidence as to how the inventor and the USPTO
`
`understood the term and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of
`
`prosecution by making the claim scope narrower that it might otherwise have been. Biogen Idea‘.
`
`Inc‘.v. G1ax0Smir}:KfineLLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing Pkilhjrls, 415
`
`F.3d at I314). An inventor’s arguments or amendments may give rise to “prosecution history
`
`disclaimer," which precludes the inventor from recapttuing through claim construction specific
`
`meanings or claim scope that the patentee clearly and unmistakably djsclaimed, or surrendered,
`
`during prosecution. See id.
`
`The Commission may also look to extrinsic evidence, such as expert and inventor
`
`testimony, dictionaries, learned treatises, and other evidence external to the patent and its
`
`prosecution history, to discern the scope and meaning of a claim term. Corrtfnental Circuits, 915
`
`F.3d at 799. Extrinsic evidence may also be useful in understanding relevant scientific
`
`principles, technical terms, and the state of the art. Id. at 796. Nonetheless, extrinsic evidence is
`
`I2
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`generally regarded as less reliable than intrinsic evidence and cannot be used to override the
`
`meaning of claim terms provided by the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 799. “The construction that
`
`stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the
`
`invention will be, in the end, the correct construction." Phillips. 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`B.
`
`Infringement
`
`Patent infringement under Section 337 includes “all forms of infiirigement, including
`
`direct, contributory, and induced infringement." Supreme Inc. v. Int '1Trade Comm 'n, 796 F.3d
`
`1338, I352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Infringement requires proof by a preponderance ofthe
`
`evidence. Sprmsion, 629 F.3d at I349.
`
`After the disputed claim terms have been construed, the next step is to compare the
`
`properly construed claim to the allegedly infringing product or process. SafeTCare, 497 F.3d at
`
`1268. Literal infringement is fotuid where every limitation of a claim literally reads on, or is
`
`found in, the accused product or process. Duncan Pmirirrg Techirs, Inc. v. IPS Group, 1110.,914
`
`F.3d 1347, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`If literal infringement is not found, infringement may still be found under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents if there is equivalence between the elements of accused product and the claimed
`
`elements of the patented invention. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Clieinical Ca,
`
`520 U.S. 17, 21 (I997). Equivalence may be found where the patentee proves, through
`
`“particularized testimony and linking argument,” that the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the accused product or process are insubstantial. Advanced Steer‘Recovery, LLC v.
`
`X-B0051Equipment, Inc, 808 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotes omitted). Equivalence
`
`may also be found where the evidence shows that the accused product or process performs
`
`substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same
`
`l3
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`result as the claimed invention. Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Cor-p.,754 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). Equivalence must be applied on a limitation-by-limitation basis, not to “the invention as
`
`a whole.” Id. at 1374 (quoting Wamer-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 29). “Generalized testimony as to
`
`the overall similarity between the claims and the accused infringer’s product or process will not
`
`suffice.” Id. (quotes omitted).
`
`There are limits to applying the doctrine of equivalents. For example, the “the inherent
`
`narrowness of the claim language" in some patents may warrant “little, if any, range of
`
`equivalents.” Advanced Steel, 808 F.3d at 1319-20. Also, the doctrine of equivalents cannot be
`
`applied so broadly as to erase, or “vitiate,” a specific claim limitation. Id. at 1320-21; Gemaltc,
`
`754 F.3d at 1374 (doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase “meaningful structural and
`
`functional limitations of the claim”). The doctrine of equivalents also cannot be applied in a
`
`manner that would enable the claimed invention “to ensnare prior art.” Id. (same).
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’3l9 Patent
`
`IV.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The '3 l 9 patent is directed to a garage door opener system comprising a “motor drive
`
`unit“ (or head unit 24 in Figure l, below) and a “wall console” (or wall control unit 60). ‘$19
`
`patent at Abstract, 3:53-55, 4:5-9, Fig. I. The wall console and motor drive unjt both include
`
`controllers (110, 56, respectively), which are “connected . . . by means of a digital data bus,"
`
`according to claims l and 9. Id. at 4:5-9, 4:29-32, 7:34)]-9 (claim I), 8:16-2] (claim 9).
`
`Claim 1 recites the following. with the disputed limitations in underlined italics:
`
`I. An improved garage door opener comprising a motor drive unit for opening
`and closing a garage door, said motor drive unit having a microcontroller and a
`wall console, said wall console having a microcontroller, said microconrroller
`gfsaid motor drive tmit‘being connected to the microgontroller‘ 011'‘the wall
`console bu means ofe digital dare bus.
`
`l4
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Id. at 7:34-39 (emphasis added). Independent claim 9 includes the same highlighted language
`
`but replaces “rnicrocomroller” with “controller.” Id. at 8:16-21.
`
`The remaining asserted claims depend on either claim 1 or claim 9. Id. at 7:40-8:4
`
`(claims 2-4), 3:! 1-l5 (claims 7, 8), 8:22-31 (claims l0-I2), 8:39-43 (claims I5, 16). Dependent
`
`claims 7 and S depend on claim land recite the following:
`
`7. The garage door opener according to claim 1 wherein power for the wall console
`is provided from the drive unit via power conductors of the data bus.
`
`8. The garage door opener according to claim 7 wherein the power conductors
`convey both data and power.
`
`Ia‘.at 8:1 1-15. Claims 15 and 16 depend on claim 9 and recite similar limitations.
`
`Id. at 8:39-43
`
`The specification does not define or use the term “digital data bus,” nor does it explain
`
`what it means to be “connected . . . by means of a digital data bus.” Instead, the specification
`
`refers to “line 62," or a “wire connection,” between the wall console and motor drive unit, which
`
`is highlighted in red i.nFigures 1 and 2, below. Id. at Abstract, 2:36-38, 4:5-9, 4:29-32. The
`
`specification uses the same term “line” to refer to wired connections between other components
`
`in the system as well. See, e.g., id. at 4: 1-4 (discussing line 54 in Fig. 2), 4:22-24 (discussing
`
`line 102 in Fig. 4), 4:44-55 {discussing lines 152, 160 in Fig. 4). Nowhere does the ’319 patent
`
`disclose or claim a wireless connection between the wall console and the motor drive unit.
`
`F-In
`
`i
`
`~=_-_.‘—_r“";:=1‘
`
`n-
`
`'-
`
`—-
`
`I3
`
`e
`n
`
`2:
`
`1
`
`;
`
`,__
`
`-\
`
`.
`
`I0
`2/
`4-.-I
`.
`,.
`=" *- .
`" _»_=-r'____-—*
`5”
`Q
`.
`
`.{
`I
`_ T
`g.» " -_ -
`Z
`--_. _,,a_\iJ,n.~
`
`" ’9'§7T=-.1
`
`_ I
`
`i|
`
`|
`
`I5
`
`____,.l
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`RF
`'v’~2:e'\!&R
`
`_ 4' -1
`is
`t
`I
`
`vim.
`but Roe
`
`at
`
`w\uzo-
`Ci:mso\_\er\
`
`0551 Ptui
`Detigtufi
`
`Ba
`
`'|3Q_|,;_|1
`r“)PR“I
`
`F‘u5i1\nt-J
`It-]§\C{ITq|:_
`
`gel
`
`Ii’­
`
`1";
`
`4_¢i
`
`'R&\_s~|S
`
`70
`
`I
`
`é/7.
`
`PL‘
`
`‘3l9 patent, Figs 1, 2 (line 62 highlighted in red).
`
`The only wireless receiver disclosed in the ’3l 9 patent is radio frequency receiver 5|],
`
`which operates with “radio transmitters S3 which may include portable or keyfob transmitters or
`
`keypad transmitters." Id. at 3:63-4:4. The radio receiver SI]does not operate with the wall
`
`control (or wall console) 60. nor it is it connected to t