Public Version
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN POWERED COVER PLATES
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1124
`
`ORDER NO. 28:
`
`CONSTRUING CERTAIN TERMS OF THE ASSERTED
`CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS AT ISSUE (JIIARKMAN
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION)
`
`(February 21, 2019)
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`PATENTS AT ISSUE.................................................................................................. ..
`
`Background ...................................................................................................... ..
`A.
`Technology Oven/iew ...................................................................................... ..
`B.
`Utility Patents................................................................................................... ..
`C.
`Design Patent ................................................................................................... ..
`D.
`TERMS CONSTRUED IN THIS ORDER.................................................................. ..
`A.
`Claim Construction and Cunent Ground Rules ............................................... ..
`
`Claim Chartsin Appendix
`B.
`APPLICABLE LAW ................................................................................................... ..
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................................... ..
`PROCEEDINGS GOING FORWARD ....................................................................... ..
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Supplementation in Response to This Order ................................................... ..
`Streamlining the Investigation ......................................................................... ..
`Settlement ........................................................................................................ ..
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ ..
`
`i
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`Appendix A
`
`Appendix A
`
`Claim Chart No. 1: Court’s Constructions of Disputed Claims Tenns
`
`Claim Chart N0. 2: Adopted Claim Construction Based Upon the Pames’
`Agreed Upon Construction
`
`Table of Abbreviations
`
`Complaint
`
`Complainant SnapPower’s Markman Brief
`
`Respondent Alltrade’s Markman Brief
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`Corrected Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`Compl.
`
`CMBr.
`
`RMBr.
`
`SMBr.
`
`Joint CC
`Chart
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`The complaint (“Complaint”) and Notice of Institution (“NOI”) identify U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,871,324 (“the ’324 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,917,430 (“the ’430 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,882,361 (“the ’36l patent,” and with the ’324 and ’430 patents, the “Utility Patents”), and U.S.
`
`Design Patent No. D8l9,426 (“the ’426 patent” or the “Design Patent,” and with the Utility
`
`Patents, the “Asserted Patents”) as the asserted patents in this Investigation. (Compl. (Doc. 1D
`
`No. 648221) at 114 (June 21, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 34872 (July 23, 2018).).
`
`In the Complaint,
`
`Complainant SnapRays, LLC d/b/a SnapPower (“SnapPower” or “C0mplainant”) alleges that
`
`Respondents Ontel Products Corporation; Dazone LLC; Shenzen C-Myway; E-Zshop4u LLC;
`
`Desteny Store; Zhongshan Led-Up Light Co. Ltd.; AllTrade Tools LLC; Guangzhou Sailu Info
`
`Tech. Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang New-Epoch Communication Industry Co., Ltd.; KCC Industries;
`
`Vistek Technology Co., Ltd.; Enstant Technology Co., Ltd.; and Manufacturers Components
`
`Incorporated infringe certain claims of the Asserted Patents. (Compl. at {[1.).
`
`Of the original thirteen named respondents, the Complaint has been withdrawn with
`
`respect to the following three (3) respondents that could not be sewed: Shenzhen C-Myway;
`
`Zhongshan Led-Up Light Co. Ltd.; and Guangzhou Sailu Info Tech. Co., Ltd. (Doc. ID No.
`
`659529 (Oct. 23, 2018).). The Complaint has been withdravm against the following three (3)
`
`respondents based either on a settlement agreement and/or consent order: E-Zshop4u LLC
`
`(Order No. 5 (Sept. 26, 2018); Doc. ID No. 660113 (Oct. 29, 2018)); KCC Industries (Order No.
`
`6 (Sept. 26, 2018); Doc. ID No. 660113 (Oct. 29, 2018)); and Ontel Products Corporation (Order
`
`N0. 12 (Oct. 29, 2018); Doc. ID No. 662648 (Nov. 27, 2018)).
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`Order No. 7 issued on September 27, 2018, directing Respondents Dazone LLC, Desteny
`
`Store, NEPCI-Zhejiang New-Epoch, and Manufacturers Components Incorporated (“Defaulting
`
`Respondents”) to show cause why they should not be held in default. (Order No. 7 (Sept. 27,
`
`2018).). Because none of the Defaulting Respondents filed a response to Order No. 7, on
`
`November 28, 2018, an Initial Determination issued finding the Defaulting Respondents in
`
`default. (Order No. 18 (Nov. 28, 2018).). The remaining three (3) respondents are Vistek
`
`Technology Co., Ltd. (“Vistek”), Enstant Technology Co., Ltd. (“Enstant”), and AllTrade Tools
`
`LLC (“Alltrade”) (collectively, “Respondents” and with SnapPower, the “Private Parties”).
`
`On August 1, 2018, a proposed Scheduling Order (“Proposed Scheduling Order”) issued
`
`to guide the timing and conduct of this Investigation. (Order No. 2 (Aug. 1, 2018).). On August
`
`8, 2018,‘ pursuant to Order No. 2, the Private Parties and Commission Investigative Staff
`
`(“Staff,” and with the Private Parties, the “Parties”) jointly filed a joint proposed procedural
`
`schedule (“Joint Proposed Procedural Schedule”) that filled in certain dates left open in Order
`
`No. 2, adopted other proposed dates contained in Order No. 2, and requested that certain
`
`proposed dates in Order No. 2 be changed. (Doc. ID No. 652515 (Aug. 9, 2018).). On August 9,
`
`2018, an initial procedural schedule (“Procedural Schedule”) issued that adopted the dates in the
`
`Parties’ Joint Proposed Procedural Schedule. (Order No. 3 (Aug. 9, 2018).).
`
`On October 24, 2018, consistent with Order No. 3, the Patties filed a Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart. (Doc. ID No. 659759 (Oct. 24, 2018).). On November 16, 2018, the Parties
`
`filed a corrected Joint Claim Construction Chart (“Joint CC Chart”). (Doc. ID No. 661997 (Nov.
`
`16, 2018).). The Joint CC Chart lays out the claim tenns for which the Parties agree on a
`
`' The official receipt date is August 9, 2018.
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`meaning and the claim terms for which a meaning remains in dispute. (Id.). In the Joint CC
`
`Chart, the Parties identified three (3) disputed tenns, and one (1) term upon which they agreed.
`
`(See id.).
`
`On November 2, 2018, SnapPower, Alltrade, and Staff each filed a claim construction
`
`brief. (SnapPower’s Markman Brief (“CMBr.”), Doc. ID No. 660878 (Nov. 2, 2018); Alltrade’s
`
`Markman Brief (“RMBL”), Doc. ID No. 660845 (Nov. 2, 2018); Staffs Markman Brief
`
`(“SMBr.”), Doc. ID No. 660868 (Nov. 2, 2018).). Enstant and Vistek jointly filed a statement
`
`asserting that: (i) they are not seeking construction of any tenns of the only patent, the ’361
`
`patent, asserted against them in this Investigation; (ii) they take no position on the constructions
`
`of claims of the other patents at issue in this Investigation; and (iii) they do not intend to submit
`
`any claim construction briefs with respect to the other patents. (Doc. ID No. 660862 (Nov. 2,
`
`2018).). On November 2, 2018, the Parties also filed their Joint Markman Hearing Proposal in
`
`which they proposed that no Markman hearing be held. (Doc. ID N0. 660871 (Nov. 2, 2018).).
`
`II.
`
`PATENTS AT ISSUE
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`I
`
`SnapPower asserted the following claims of the Utility Patents in this Investigation:
`
`claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 19 ofthe ’324 patent; claims 1-3, 7, 8, 18, and 19 ofthe ’430
`
`patent; and claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 14, 17, 21, 23, and 24 ofthe ’361 patent? See, e.g., 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`34872 (July 23, 2018). SnapPower also asserted the sole claim of the Design Patent. Id. The
`
`2 Of the remaining Respondents, the ’361 patent is asserted only against Enstant and Vistek; the ’324
`patent and the Design patent are asserted only against Alltrade. SnapPower asserted the ’430 only against
`Ontel, who, as noted above, has since settled with SnapPower and is no longer a Respondent in this
`Investigation. Thus, the ’430 patent is not asserted against any of the remaining Respondents.
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`three (3) disputed claim terms are recited in claims 1, 8, 13, and l7 of the ’324 patent, and the
`
`sole claim of the Design Patent. (See Joint CC Chart.).
`
`B.
`
`Technology Overview
`
`This Investigation involves cover plates that are placed over an electrical receptacle body
`
`“to cover the opening to the [electrical] box while allowing access to the outlet receptacles on the
`
`face of the outlet body.” (JXM-0001 at 2:20-31.). Specifically, the technology at issue relates to
`
`powered cover plates that derive electrical power from an outlet body to power electrical devices
`
`such as “lights, motion detectors, photocells, wireless nodes, Bluetooth comrectors, smoke
`
`detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, cameras, heat detectors, speakers, microphones or any
`
`other desired electrical device.” (Id. at 6: 14-18.).
`
`As shown below in Figure 1, one embodiment of a powered cover plate includes three (3)
`
`LED lights (212) along the bottom edge of the cover plate. (Id. at 6:19-28.).
`
`Figure 1: Illustrative Cover Plate
`
`ZOO\
`
`1°?!
`
`20D
`
`\
`
`\
`
`:":":;:';;:;:;;.'.:;:"W"
`
`1
`
`213
`
`"'
`
`208b
`
`' '
`
`216
`
`202
`
`214
`
`-
`/,,
`ti
`rg
`
`e
`
`1 E
`
`[J
`,1
`
`204
`
`-1‘
`
`'
`
`ii
`V
`
`I
`
`>
`
`11°11
`
`ma
`
`'r
`
`at
`
`‘
`
`,
`
`*
`
`~
`
`208a
`
`1
`
`":::."r
`
`..
`
`214
`
`212
`
`Fig. 2A
`
`Fig 2B
`
`(Id. at Figs. 2A, 2B.).
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`The powered cover plates include an electrically conductive structure, such as a
`
`“conducting strip” (208a, 208b in Figures 1 and 2), that comes into contact with screw temtinals
`
`(114 in Figure 2) of the outlet body. (Id. at 5:31-38.). This contact allows the powered cover
`
`plate to draw power from the outlet body and power the load without needing to hardwire the
`
`cover plate to the outlet body. (Id; see also id. at 7:7-13.).
`
`Shown below in Figure 2 is a “rear view” (i.e., from behind the plate looking out) of an
`
`exemplary powered cover plate (200) connected to an outlet body (100). (Id.).
`
`Figure 2: Cover Plate Placed Over Outlet
`
`its
`
`zoo
`
`l""”Y........TI1YIf1TT7T"‘"’IjT';;f'""
`
`:3
`
`v-——-us
`
`‘\~
`
`zoan
`
`'"’
`
`I16
`
`H
`
`r
`
`ll I
`
`__.
`
`l
`
`100 —-~
`
`l.
`
`1l4 ~­
`
`208a -‘/'
`
`1 F
`
`112 ­
`
`w _-­
`
`:
`
`1
`
`i
`
`\\
`" 1‘
`
`5
`
`F.
`
`l
`
`‘
`
`.......
`
`l*¢€d
`‘b-IADA
`212
`
`© I
`
`K»
`Q
`
`1.
`
`l
`
`l
`Rk\
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3.).
`
`C.
`
`Utility Patents
`
`The ’324 patent, entitled “Active Cover Plates,” was filed April 12 2017 as U S Patent
`
`Application Serial N0. 15/486,273 (“the ’273 application”).
`
`(JXM-0001 at (21), (22), (54).).
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`I
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`Through a series of continuation-in-part applications, the ’273 application claims priority to U.S.
`
`Patent Application Serial No. 13/461,915, filed May 2, 2012. (Id. at (60).). The ’273 application
`
`claims its earliest priority to U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 61/574,344,3 filed on
`
`August 1, 2011.4 (Id. at (60).). The ’273 application issued as the ’324 patent on January 16,
`
`2018, and names as inventors Jeremy Smith, Martin Johnson, Phil Dietz, and Darren Knight.
`
`(Id. at (72).).
`
`SnapRays, LLC owns, by assignment, all right, title, and interest in and to the ’324
`
`patent.
`
`(See, e.g., id. at (73); Compl. at Ex. 5.).
`
`The asserted claims of the Utility Patents are apparatus claims generally directed towards
`
`the structure and functionality of a powered cover plate, i.e., a cover plate that consumes
`
`electricity from the receptacle body (such as an outlet or switch) to power an electrical device
`
`(such as one or more LED lights). As shown below in Figure 3, a “duplex style” electrical outlet
`
`body (100) has two outlet receptacles (115) where electrical cords can be plugged in to deliver
`
`power to a device. (Id. at 3:52-58, 4:5-9.). Electrical power from the building is delivered to the
`
`outlet body by wrapping the stripped ends of wires (175, 170) arotmd the screw terminals (105,
`
`110) located on the sides of the outlet body. (Id. at 3:59-64.).
`
`3All of the asserted Utility Patents claim their earliest priority to this provisional application.
`Additionally, each of the asserted Utility Patents claims priority to U.S Patent Application Serial No.
`14/066,621, filed on October 29, 2013, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,035,180, and are thus related.
`
`4According to SnapPower’s Notice of Patent Priority Dates, the claims of the asserted Utility Patents,
`with one exception, claim priority only to October 30, 2012, which is the filing date of U.S. Provisional
`Application Serial No. 61/720,131. (See Doc. ID No. 654952 at 2 (Sept. 5, 2018).). The one exception is
`claim 21 of the ’361 patent, which SnapPower asserts claims priority to the earlier provisional application
`Serial No. 61/574,344 (filed on August 1, 2011). (Id.).
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`F’ ure 3: Outlet and Illustrative Cover Plate Configured
`lg
`To Fit Over Outlet
`
`100
`
`135
`
`5
`
`tt
`
`100
`
`/
`
`114
`
`140
`
`100/
`
`Q /
`
`150
`
`\‘\
`
`I/155
`165
`4!
`
`_
`
`\
`
`J
`
`'"" 1
`
`"<3
`
`175
`
`170
`
`(Id. at Figs. 1A, lB, lC.).
`
`As showrl below in Figure 4, the Utility Patents disclose the use of clips (1210, 1212) that
`
`extend rearward from the cover plate to make contact with the screw terminals on the outlet
`
`body.
`
`(Id. at 21:1-5.).
`
`'
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`Figure 4: Cover Plate with Clips
`
`1200
`
`1212
`
`1205
`
`121°
`
`\1232
`
`(Id. at Fig. 12.).
`
`1
`
`When the cover plate is placed over an outlet body, a portion of the clip (1240) contacts
`
`the electrified screw terminal to extract power from the outlet. (Id. at 21:14-20.). The clips are
`
`then electrically connected to a load, such as one or more LED lights, to power the load. (Id. at
`
`21:21-28.). The clips eliminate the need to hardwire a cover plate to the electrical supply in a
`
`building. (Id at 7:8-11.). Additionally, when covering an outlet body, the powered cover plate
`
`is electrically connected to the outlet without occupying a socket. (Id. at 7:9-13.).
`
`D.
`
`Design Patent
`
`The Design Patent consists of six (6) figures that depict “[t]he omamental design for a
`
`lighted wall plate.” (JXM-0002 at Claim (57), Figs. 1-6.). The Design Patent discloses and
`
`claims only the front of the plate, i.e., the side visible to a user when the plate is installed on a
`
`wall. (Id. at Description (57) (“The back of the lighted wall plate is not visible during use and
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`forms no part of the claimed design.”).). Consistent with the standard practice of design patents,
`
`the “broken lines” shown in Figures 1-6 “represent unclaimed subject matter and form no part of
`
`the claimed design.” (Id.).
`
`III.
`
`TERMS CONSTRUED IN THIS ORDER
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction and Current Ground Rules
`
`Claim terms are construed in this Order solely for the purposes of this Section 337
`
`Investigation. Only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BVv. Int ’l Trade C0mm.,
`
`366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng ’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Going forward, including during the evidentiary hearing (“Hearing”) scheduled to be held
`
`April 8-11, 2019, the Parties are limited to the constructions adopted in this Order. Ground Rule
`
`1.14 states that “[t]he parties will be bound by their claim construction positions set forth on the
`
`date they are required to submit a joint list showing each party’s final proposed construction of
`
`the disputed claim terms and will not be permitted to alter these absent a timely showing of good
`
`cause.” Modified or new constructions set forth for the first time in post-hearing briefs will be
`
`considered to be waived.
`
`Similarly, it will not be appropriate for any party to seek additional claim construction
`
`during the Hearing or merely to state that a claim tenn that may be implicated in an expert report
`
`or expert testimony has either a “plain or ordinary” meaning, or that a claim term is “indefinite.”
`
`(See Order No. 2 at 8; G.R. 1.14.). If any party posits a “plain and ordinary meaning,” it must be
`
`explained.
`
`(Order N0. 2 at 8.).
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`B.
`
`Claim Charts in Appendix A
`
`The claim charts attached as Appendix A contain a term for which the Parties have
`
`agreed to a construction and terms for which the Parties dispute the proper construction, broken
`
`down by patent. The Parties’ agreed-upon claim construction was adopted without providing a
`
`rationale or explanation. (See App. A at Claim Chart No. 2.).
`
`For the disputed tenns, there are six (6) columns in the chart: (1) Term(s) to be
`
`Construed; (2) SnapPower’s Proposed Construction; (3) Al1trade’s Proposed Construction; (4)
`
`Staffs Proposed Construction; (5) the Adopted Constmction; and (6) and the Rationale/Support
`
`for the Adopted Construction.
`
`(See id. at Claim Chart No. 1.).
`
`IV.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW5
`
`Claim construction begins with the language of the claims themselves. Claims should be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, viewing the claim tenns in the context of the entire patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In some cases, the plain and ordinary meaning of claim
`
`language is readily apparent and claim construction will involve little more than “the application
`
`of the widely-accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. In other cases,
`
`claim terms have a specialized meaning and it is necessary to determine what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean by analyzing
`
`“the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history,
`
`and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, as well as the meaning of
`
`5The constructions of the disputed claim terms in Claim Chart No. l of Appendix A generally follow and
`apply the law as described above. To the extent possible, the case law that applies to a construction is
`either identified explicitly, or implicitly in adopting a par1y’s argument or construction.
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`technical terms, and the state of the art.” 1d. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
`
`Filtration Sys., Ina, 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance with regard to the meaning of
`
`disputed claim language. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in
`
`the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id Similarly, other claims of the patent at issue,
`
`regardless of whether they have been asserted against respondents, may show the scope and
`
`meaning of disputed claim language. Id.
`
`In cases in which the meaning of a disputed claim tenn in the context of the patent’s
`
`claims was uncertain, the specification was used as the “single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`disputed tenn,” Id. at 1321. Moreover, “[t]he 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.” Id. at 1316. As a general rule, however, the particular examples or
`
`embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations. Id.
`
`at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history may also explain the meaning of claim language, although “it
`
`often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction
`
`purposes.” Id. at 1317. The prosecution histoiy consists of the complete record of the patent
`
`examination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including cited prior alt.
`
`Id. The prosecution history may reveal “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.
`
`If the intrinsic evidence is insufficient to establish the clear meaning of a claim, a court
`
`may resort to an examination of the extrinsic evidence. Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v. Hoflinger
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`1ndus., Inc., 206 F.3d 1408, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Extrinsic evidence may shed light on the
`
`relevant art, and “consists of all evidence extemal to the patent and prosecution history,
`
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and leamed treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1317. In evaluating expert testimony, a court should disregard any expert testimony that is
`
`conclusory or “clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves,
`
`the written description, and the prosecution history, in other words, with the written record of the
`
`patent.” (Id. at 1318.). Moreover, expert testimony is only of assistance if, with respect to the
`
`disputed claim language, it identifies what the accepted meaning in the field would be to one
`
`skilled in the art. Symantec Corp. v. Comput. Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1289 n.3., 1290­
`
`91 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Testimony that recites how each expert would constme the term should be
`
`accorded little or no weight. Id. Extrinsic evidence is inherently “less reliable” than intrinsic
`
`evidence, and “is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless
`
`considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318-19.
`
`Extrinsic evidence is a last resort: “[i]n those cases where the public record
`
`unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence
`
`is improper.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceplronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A hypothetical person is a person of ordinary skill and “ordinary creativity.” KSBInt 'l
`
`C0. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). “Factors that may be considered in determining
`
`[the] level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor[s]; (2)
`
`type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to the problems; (4) rapidity with
`
`which inventions are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of
`
`active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs Ltd. v. Union Oil C0. of California, 713 F.2d 693,
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`696-97 (Fed. Cir.) (citations omitted). “These factors are not exhaustive but merely a guide to
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo C0. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F3d
`
`1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).). The hypothetical person of skill is also separately presumed to
`
`have knowledge of all the relevant prior art in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jefii"ey­
`
`Allan Indus, Inc., 807 F.2d 693, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`SnapPower contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would either: (1) “have an
`
`associate’s degree in electrical engineering with focus on electrical systems”; (2) “have a
`
`[B]achelor’s degree in electrical engineering with focus on the electrical arts”; (3) “be a licensed
`
`electrician familiar with residential wiring”; or (4) “be a professional electrical engineer with
`
`experience in electrical codes and relevant standards of certifying organizations such as UL.”
`
`(CMBr. at 3-4.). Sna-pPoweralso asserts that “[e]xtensive non-professional experience in the
`
`wiring of residential electrical systems together with mechanical aptitude could serve in lieu of
`
`any of the foregoing.” (Id. (citing CXM-0001 (Declaration of Dr. Horenstein) at 1]l2.).
`
`Staff submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “at least a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering,” and that “[s]uch an individual might also have some practical
`
`experience with the design, manufacture, and/or installation and servicing of electrical outlets.”
`
`(SMBr. at 10.).
`
`In their Markman Brief, Alltrade did not provide a definition for a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the alt.
`
`lt is determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have least a-Bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering but that “[e]xtensive non-professional experience in the wiring of
`
`residential electrical systems together with mechanical aptitude,” as SnapPower proposes, could
`
`serve in lieu of such a degree. (See CMBr. at 3-4.).
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`VI. _ PROCEEDINGS GOING FORWARD
`
`A.
`
`Supplementation in Response to This Order
`
`The Parties may not file supplemental expert reports in response to this Order. No
`
`additional discovery will be permitted because of this Order. No re-argument of the claims
`
`construed in this Order may occur.
`
`As the Parties proceed in this Investigation, they will be expected to notify Chambers of
`
`any issues that have become moot, or have been eliminated for any reason through a filing on
`
`EDIS. The Parties’ required outlines that must identify any issues, claims, defenses, prior art,
`
`theories, or any other content that was originally asserted or argued, should identify all issues or
`
`contentions and patents that have been dropped or become moot for any reason.
`
`i The Parties should redact from expert reports and from any other documents upon which
`
`they intend to rely any issues, claims, defenses, prior art, theories, or any other content that has
`
`been rendered moot or disallowed as a result of this or other Orders, or termination from this
`
`Investigation of patent claims or allegations. The Parties must file on EDIS any expert reports or
`
`other documents upon which they intend to rely that have been redacted for the reasons stated
`
`above, and provide two (2) copies to Chambers.
`
`B.
`
`Streamlining the Investigation
`
`p
`
`To the extent that this Markman Order will enable the Parties to streamline the
`
`Investigation, the Parties are encouraged to drop issues now in advanceof the Hearing scheduled
`
`for April 8-11, 2019. Moreover, the Parties are encouraged to resolve promptly each issue in this
`
`Investigation for which there is no reasonable dispute or little, or weak, evidentiary support.
`
`C.
`
`Settlement
`
`It is strongly recommended that the Parties take informal opportunities to engage in
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`settlement.
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Constructions of the disputed claim tenns are hereby adopted by this Order for the
`
`reasons discussed in Claim Chart No. 1. The construction of the agreed upon claim term listed in
`
`Claim Chart No. 2 is also adopted by this Order.
`
`Within seven (7) business days of the date of this document, each party shall submit to
`
`the Office of the Administrative Law Judges a statement as to whether or not“ it seeks to have
`
`any confidential portion of this document (including Charts 1 and 2) deleted from the public
`
`version. Any party seeking redactions to the public version must submit to this office two (2)
`
`copies ofa proposed public version of this document pursuant to Ground Rule 1.10 with red
`
`brackets clearly indicating any portion asserted to contain confidential business information.
`
`The Parties’ submissions may be made by facsimile and/or hard copy by the
`
`aforementioned date. In addition, an electronic courtesy copy is required pursuant to Grotmd
`
`Rule 1.3.2.
`
`The Parties’ submissions concerning the public version of this document need not be
`
`filed with the Commission Secretary.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`_/
`
`~
`
`J McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`6 This means that parties that do not seek to have any portion of this Order redacted are still required to
`submit a statement to this effect.
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`

`

`Inv. No. 337-TA-1124
`Appendix A to Order No. 28
`
`Public Version
`
`Claim Chart No. 1: Court’s Constructions of Disputed Claim Terms
`
`Tenns to be
`Construed
`
`SnapPower’ s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Al]trade’s
`Proposed
`Construction‘
`
`Stafl‘ s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Adopted
`Construction
`
`Support for Construction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,871,324
`
`“The conductor is
`sandwiched between
`the front insulator
`and the rear
`insulator”
`
`Claim 13
`
`the conductor is
`enclosed in close
`proximity between
`at least two other
`structures
`(specifically the
`front insulator and
`the rear insulator)
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, for
`example, the
`conductor is
`enclosed between
`the front insulator
`on one side and the
`rear insulator on
`the other side. The
`conductor cannot
`be separated from
`the front insulator
`and the rear
`insulator by an air
`gap­
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, for
`example, the
`conductor is
`enclosed between
`the front insulator
`on one side and the
`rear insulator on
`the other side. The
`conductor cannot
`be separated from
`the front insulator
`and the rear
`insulator by an air
`gaP~
`
`[Same as Staff]
`
`[Same as Alltrade]
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, for
`example, the
`conductor is
`enclosed between
`the front insulator
`on one side and the
`rear insulator on
`the other side. The
`conductor cannot
`be separated from
`the front insulator
`and the rear
`V
`insulator by an air
`gap­
`
`Alltrade’s and Staffs proposed
`construction is adopted.
`
`The Parties’ main dispute is
`whether “sandwiched,” as recited
`in claim 13: (i) defines the
`conductor as being “enclosed in
`close proximity between" the front
`and rear insulators, as SnapPowe
`proposes; or (ii) requires the
`conductor to be “enclosed
`between” the front and rear
`insulators and “cannot be
`separated from” the front and re
`insulator “by an air gap,” as
`Alltrade and Staff propose.
`
`8.1‘
`
`I‘
`
`' Respondents Enstant Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“Enstant”) and Vistek Technology Co., Ltd. (“Vistek”) filed a statement that they are not seeking construction of
`any terms of the only patent asserted against them in this Investigation, U.S. Patent no. 9,882,361. (Doc. ID No. 660862 (Nov. 2, 2018).). Enstant and Vistek also
`state that they take no position on the construction of claims of the other asserted patents. (Id.).
`
`Page 1 of Z6
`
`

`

`Inv. No. 337-TA-1124
`Appendix A to Order No. 28
`
`Public Version
`
`As Staff notes, the term
`“sandwiched” is clear and does
`not require construction. (SMBr.
`at 16.). An object “sandwiched”
`between two other objects is
`enclosed between them. (See,
`e.g., SXM-0003 (Shorter Oxford
`English Dictionary (6th ed. 2007),
`Vol. 2) at 5'(“Insert (a thing)
`between two other dissimilar ones,
`place (different elements)
`alternately: squeeze (in) between
`two others”).).
`
`This Lmderstandingof the plain
`meaning of the term “sandwiched”
`in relation to a conductor and front
`and rear insulators is supported by
`the specification of the ’324
`patent. “The front insulating
`portion (1530) covers the front of
`the flexible conductive portion
`(1610) and the rear insulating
`portion (1515) covers the rear of
`the flexible conductive portion
`(1610). Thus, the flexible
`conductive portion (1610) is
`sandwiched between the front
`insulating portion (1530) and the
`rear insulating portion (1515).”
`
`Page 2 of 26
`
`

`

`Inv. N0. 337-TA-1124
`Appendix A to Order No. 28
`
`Public Version
`
`(JXM-0001 at 24:37-48 (emphasi
`added); see also id. at Figs. 15,
`16A.).
`
`S
`
`15“
`
`1505
`
`Ea:===§=:¥:%-»_12?
`‘fig
`‘
`
`;:;:-_;:;:§:§:§-::§:
`
`1520
`
`1510
`
`1522
`1525
`
`1515
`
`t\\\‘_"!'FF?FTTT9::
`--w:4»;:~-~-~»
`1535
`
`} 1530
`
`(Id. at Fig. 15 (insulator without
`c0nductor).).
`
`1505
`
`1505
`
`_;:,E;,
`
`1510
`
`1,00
`
`1515
`
`1530
`
`1500
`
`1610
`
`"’-2*
`
`1515
`
`1525
`
`Page 3 of 26
`
`

`

`Inv. No. 337-TA-1124
`Appendix A to Order No. 28
`
`Public Version
`
`(Id. at Fig. 16A (insulator with
`conductor).
`The specification discloses that
`“the cavity (1522) in the upper
`portion (1540) of the insulator
`(1500) slips over the contact
`(1605) and the barbs (1625)
`engage with the sides of the cavity
`(1522) to secure the insulator
`(1500) onto the conductor (1600).
`The front insulating portion
`(1530) is then rotated about the
`joint (1525) until the post (1535)
`fits through the aperture (1630) in
`the flexible conducting portion
`(1610) and through the aperture
`(1520) in the rear insulating
`portion (1515). The post (1535) is
`then secured in place.” (Id. at
`24:23-27.). “Once [the post] is
`secured in place, the front
`insulating portion (1530, FIG.
`16A) and the rear insulating
`portion (1515) sandwich the
`flexible conductive portion (1610,
`FIG. 16B) between them.” (Id. at
`24:54-57 (emphasis added).).
`
`Page 4 of 26
`
`

`

`Inv. No. 337-TA-1124
`Appendix A to Order No. 28
`
`Public Version
`
`This definition is also consistent
`with the specification’s use of the
`tenn “sandwich” to describe
`structural relationships where one
`component is enclosed between
`two other components.
`(See, e.g.,
`id. at 3:60-64 (sandwiching
`building wiring between terminal
`screw and plate), 9:22-23 (circuit
`board sandwiched between face
`plate and back plate), 15:64-16:2
`(sandwiching of bases of spring
`clips), 25:35-41 (conductor
`sandwiched between front and
`rear insulators).).
`In addition, this definition is
`consistent with an amendment the
`applicants made durin