`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON D.C.
`Before the Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1421
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`RESPONDENTS’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED ........... 2
`A.
`The Preambles ........................................................................................................ 2
`1.
`The Preambles’ Recitations Of Intended Uses Are Not Limiting ............. 3
`2.
`The Preamble Phrases “A Battery Pack” And “A Deep Cycle
`Battery” Are Convenient Labels And Not Limitations .............................. 5
`Claim 14 Of The ’994 Patent Cannot Be Corrected In the ITC ................. 6
`3.
`The Balance and Cutoff Limitations Of The ’994 Patent ...................................... 8
`1.
`“a circuit board within said housing configured to balance each
`individual cell within said housing” .......................................................... 8
`(a)
`Complainants Concede That The Balance Limitation Fails
`To Recite Sufficient Structure To Perform The Claimed
`Function Rendering The Limitation A Means-Plus-
`Function Limitation ....................................................................... 9
`Complainants Concede That The Patent Does Not Disclose
`An Algorithm For Performing The Balance Function
`Rendering Claim 1 Indefinite. ...................................................... 11
`(i)
`The Means-Plus-Function Analysis Focuses On
`What Is Disclosed In The Specification, Not What
`A POSA May Have Known To Implement ..................... 11
`The Disclosure Of A Controller Or Microprocessor
`Without An Algorithm Is Not Corresponding
`Structure For Performing The Balance Function ............. 13
`The Additional Disclosure Relied Upon By
`Complainants Does Not Provide Corresponding
`Structure For Performing The Balance Function ............. 14
`Only Respondents’ Proposed Construction Of The Claimed
`Function Aligns With The Intrinsic Evidence ............................. 16
`“a circuit board within said housing … having a cutoff function
`incorporated therein” (claim 1) / “a circuit board within said
`housing having a cutoff function incorporated therein” (claim 14) ......... 17
`(a)
`Complainants Concede That The Cutoff Limitation Fails
`To Recite Sufficient Structure To Perform The Claimed
`Function Rendering The Limitation A Means-Plus-
`Function Limitation ..................................................................... 18
`
`(b)
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`(c)
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`(b)
`
`Complainants Concede That The Patent Does Not Disclose
`An Algorithm For Performing The Cutoff Function
`Rendering Claims 1 And 14 Indefinite. ....................................... 18
`Only Respondents’ Proposed Construction Of The Claimed
`Function Aligns With The Intrinsic Evidence ............................. 20
`Little Weight Should Be Given To Complainants’ Expert Witness
`Testimony ............................................................................................................ 21
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 24
`
`(c)
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................5
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc.,
`919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................5
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................14
`
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs., Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................11
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................................3
`
`Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills & Parts Thereof Commission Opinion,
`USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-895, 2015 WL 13817118 (Feb. 20, 2015) .........................................7
`
`EON Corp., IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................13
`
`H-W Tech. L.C. v. Overstock.com Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................6, 7, 8
`
`Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker,
`329 U.S. 1 (1946) .....................................................................................................................21
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................12
`
`Meds. Co. v. Mylan, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................21
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................22
`
`Pacing Technologies, LLC. v. Garmin International, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co. Inc.,
`35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................7
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................................................22
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................5
`
`Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc.,
`311 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................22
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................10
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ..............................................................10, 16, 18, 20
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................13
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`-.
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`1*
`2*
`3*
`
`4*
`
`5*
`
`6*
`7*
`8*
`9*
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,412,994
`10, 2025 (“Toliyat Decl.”
`Declaration of Dr. Hamid A Toliyat, dated January
`Excerpt of Complainants’ Objections & Responses to Respondents’ Interrogatories
`Nos. 1—13, served by Complainants on November 22, 2024
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/989,273 Application Prosecution History Excerpt
`“°273 Application Prosecution History Excerpt”
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/656,101 Application Prosecution History Excerpt
`“°101 Application Prosecution History Excerpt”
`Complaint, Ex. 63 (Infringement Analysis
`Complaint, Ex. 76 (Practiced Product Analysis
`U.S. Patent No. 9,954,207
`Joint Chart ofAgreed and Disputed Constructions (Jan. 7, 2025) (“Joint Claim
`Construction Chart”
`
`*: Denotes exhibit previously filed with Respondents’ Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Complainants
`
`Respondents
`
`Patents-in-Suit
`POSA
`°994 patent
`°207 patent
`RBr.
`
`CBr.
`
`SBr.
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`LithiumHub, LLC, Lithtumhub Technologies, LLC, and
`Martin Koebler
`Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Cabela’s LLC, Navico Group
`Americas LLC, Dragonfly Energy Corp., Dragonfly Energy
`Holdings Corp., Relion Battery (Shenzhen) Technology Co.,
`Renogy New Energy Co., Ltd., RNG InternationalInc.,
`Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd, Shenzhen LiTime
`Technology Co., Ltd, Clean Republic SODO LLC,and
`MillerTech Energy Solutions LLC
`’994 patent and ’207 patent
`person of ordinary
`skill in the art
`U.S. Patent No. 9,412,994
`U.S. Patent No. 9,954,207
`Respondents’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (EDIS Doc.
`ID 840888
`Complainants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (EDIS Doc.
`ID 840885
`Staff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (EDIS Doc. ID
`841449
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 6 and the Ground Rules in this Investigation, Respondents hereby
`
`submit their Responsive Claim Construction Brief.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Complainants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief demonstrates that Respondents’
`
`proposed constructions are correct.
`
`
`
`First, Respondents maintain that the preambles are generally not limiting. In the interest
`
`of streamlining issues before the Court, however, Respondents will not contest that certain aspects
`
`of the preambles are limiting. Namely, that the voltage ranges and positive and negative terminals
`
`recited by the preambles are limiting. This leaves three remaining disputes with respect to the
`
`preambles: (1) whether the intended uses are limiting, (2) whether the introductory claim labels
`
`are limiting, and (3) whether the ALJ can correct the error in claim 14 of the ’994 patent.
`
`
`
`Second, for the means-plus-function limitations, Complainants concede that the limitations
`
`do not recite sufficient structure for performing the balance and cutoff functions through their
`
`admission that a controller—not recited in the claims—is required to perform these claimed
`
`functions. Because no algorithm is disclosed in the specification for performing these functions,
`
`Complainants resort to arguing that a POSA would have known how to implement unspecified and
`
`non-disclosed algorithms. But the relevant inquiry is not what a POSA could implement, but what
`
`corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification. The specification discloses no algorithm
`
`for performing each of the claimed functions, and the claims of the ’994 patent are therefore
`
`indefinite.
`
`
`
`Third, the ALJ should afford Complainants’ expert little (if any) weight, as he did not
`
`perform his analysis from the perspective of a POSA and Complainants improperly attempt to use
`
`his declaration to introduce additional opinions from a previously undisclosed expert.
`
`1
`
`

`

`II.
`
`RESPONDENTS’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED
`
`The Preambles
`
`Complainants
`
`Entire preamble is
`
`Claim
`
`
`
`Preambles
`
`Respondents and
`Staff
`
` electrical device in a 12 volt to
`
`
`
`Only the green
`A battery pack for driving an
`994. Claim 1__|
`underlined and d/ve|limiting
`120 volt operating system, said
`italics portions are
`battery pack having a positive
`limiting
`terminal and a negative terminal,
`
`
`
` 994, Claim 14|A battery pack for driving an
`
`Only the green and|Entire preamble is
`
`
`electrical device ina | [sic| volt|blue portions are limiting
`to 120 volt operating system, said|limiting
`
`battery
`pack comprising:
`
`
`Entire preamble is
`Only the green
`A battery pack /aving positive
`°207, Claim 1
`
`and negative terminals for underlined and d/ve|limiting
`powering an electric motor for
`italics portions are
`starting an internal combustion
`limiting
`engine in which the electric motor
`is in a 6 volt to 48 volt operating
`system, said battery pack
`
` 207, Claim 12|A deep cycle battery having Only the green Entire preamble is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`positive and negative terminals in|underlined and dive|limiting
` a 6 volt to 800 volt operating
`italics portions are
`
`limiting
`
`
`
`system, comprising:
`
`In their opening brief, Respondents asserted that the preambles are not limiting. RBr. at
`
`10-19. Complainants argued that the preambles are limiting in their entireties. CBr. at 20-24.
`
`Staff contends that only the voltage ranges (green underlined) and the positive and negative
`
`terminals (d/weitalics) are limiting.
`
`To narrow the issues in dispute, Respondents do not oppose Staff’s position, and since
`
`Complainants agree with Staff at least in that the voltage ranges and positive and negative
`
`terminals are limiting, the only remaining construction disputes are (1) whether the intended uses
`
`

`

`
`
`are limiting, (2) whether the introductory claim labels (e.g., “a battery pack” and “a deep cycle
`
`battery”) are limiting, and (3) whether the ALJ can correct the error in claim 14 of the ’994 patent.1
`
`1.
`
`The Preambles’ Recitations Of Intended Uses Are Not Limiting
`
`Respondents and Staff agree that the intended uses are not limiting. It is well-settled
`
`Federal Circuit precedent that only in “rare instances” will statements of intended use be limiting
`
`in an apparatus claim. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). Such instances can arise “only if the applicant clearly and unmistakably relied on those
`
`uses or benefits to distinguish prior art.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, the Applicant did not do so.
`
`As to claims 1 and 14 of the ’994 patent, Complainants do not provide any evidence that
`
`the Applicant relied on the intended use “for driving an electrical device” to distinguish over prior
`
`art, no less clearly and unmistakably. CBr. at 21, 23–24. Instead, as to claim 1, Complainants
`
`argue only that the preamble’s intended use is a limitation because a portion of the intended use
`
`“electric device” appears in dependent claim 2. In alleged support, Complainants cite Pacing
`
`Technologies, LLC. v. Garmin International, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015). CBr. at 21.
`
`However, Pacing does not replace Catalina’s requirement that Complainants show a clear and
`
`unmistakable reliance on the intended use replace Catalina’s requirement that Complainants show
`
`a clear and unmistakable reliance on the claim limitation. Compare Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809 with
`
`Pacing, 778 F.3d at 1024. Regarding claim 14 of the ’994 patent, Complainants fail to provide
`
`any argument supporting conversion of an intended use to a limitation. CBr. at 23–24.
`
`
`1 While Respondents do not oppose Staff’s proposed construction, Respondents maintain that the
`claims as written raise unenforceability, enablement, written description and/or indefiniteness
`issues for at least the reasons set forth in Respondents’ opening brief. (RBr. at 16–19), Staff’s
`opening Brief (SBr. at 14) and Complainants’ opening brief (CBr. at 23–24). Respondents reserve
`these issues for later adjudication if necessary.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`As to claim 1 of the ’207 patent, Complainants make the same flawed antecedent basis
`
`argument—namely, that a portion of the intended use appears in the body of dependent claim 11.
`
`CBr. at 22. However, Complainants’ position fails because it provides no evidence of a clear and
`
`unmistakable reliance on the intended use to overcome prior art. Id. Complainants also assert the
`
`preamble’s intended use is limiting because, in an earlier patent application, the Applicant argued
`
`“[t]he present invention starts large internal combustion engines, as reflected in amended Claim
`
`7.”2 Id. This argument does not support “clear and unmistakable” reliance under Catalina. First,
`
`the Applicant’s argument concerned a pending, never-to-issue claim (pending claim 7) of the ’273
`
`application that matured into the ’994 patent, not claim 1 of the ’207 patent. Second, the body of
`
`pending claim 7 referenced in Complainants’ argument explicitly recited “starting … a large
`
`internal combustion engine….” RBr., Ex. 4 (’273 Application Prosecution History Excerpt), at 15.
`
`The Applicant had amended claim 7 to add the word “large” because Miyashita was directed to
`
`smaller internal combustion engines. Id. at 15, 25–26. This argument failed because the Applicant
`
`canceled pending claim 7 immediately after making the argument; application claim 7 was never
`
`issued and is not in the ’994 patent, no less the ’207 patent. Finally, Complainants’ argument is at
`
`odds with the Applicant’s statement that the alleged invention of the ’207 patent is broader than
`
`the preambles. At issuance of the ’207 patent, the Applicant changed the title from “Lithium Starter,
`
`Jump Starter and Deep Cycle Battery, with Solid State Switches” to “Lithium Battery with Solid
`
`State Switches.” RBr., Ex. 5 (’101 Application Prosecution History Excerpt), at 30–32. The title
`
`change removed references to starters for internal combustion engines (i.e., “jump starters”) and
`
`
`2 The Applicant canceled claim 7 of the then pending application that matured into the ’994
`patent, so claim 7 never issued.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`deep cycle batteries, and the Applicant argued the change was necessary to “more accurately
`
`describe[] the invention.” Id.
`
`For all of these reasons and those raised in the Staff and Respondents’ opening briefs, the
`
`intended uses are not limiting. The Complainants fail to provide evidence of clear and
`
`unmistakable reliance on the intended uses to convert them to limitations under Catalina.
`
`2.
`
`The Preamble Phrases “A Battery Pack” And “A Deep Cycle Battery”
`Are Convenient Labels And Not Limitations
`
`Respondents and Staff agree that “a battery pack” in claims 1 and 14 of the ’994 patent and
`
`claim 1 of the ’207 patent and “a deep cycle battery” in claim 12 of the ’207 patent are not
`
`limitations. First, they are merely convenient labels that provide a descriptive name. Am. Med.
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“the term ‘photoselective
`
`vaporization’ is simply a descriptive name for the invention that is fully set forth in the bodies of
`
`the claims”) (citing Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(preamble term “policy caching method” did not limit claims because it served only as a
`
`“convenient label for the invention as a whole”)). Second, the phrases “a battery pack” and “a
`
`deep cycle battery” do not provide any structure needed to make the bodies of any claim
`
`structurally complete; rather, they merely identify a structure of which the recited body may be a
`
`part. Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (preamble
`
`phrase is not limiting where it does not “supply structure needed to make the body itself a
`
`‘structurally complete invention’” or where “it merely adds structure of which the body-recited
`
`module is a part.”). Additionally, as to claim 12 of the ’207 patent, the Applicant deleted “deep
`
`cycle” from the patent’s title and argued the change was needed to “more accurately describe[] the
`
`invention.” RBr., Ex. 5 (’101 Application Prosecution History Excerpt), at 30–32.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Complainants argue that “a battery pack” in claim 1 of the ’994 patent is limiting because
`
`it provides an antecedent basis for the body dependent claim 2. CBr. at 21. However, claim 2 does
`
`not recite “said battery pack” as an affirmative element but to orient the affirmatively recited
`
`“switch.” Moreover, claim 2 is a nonsensical, physical impossibility—it recites “a switch within
`
`said [battery pack] housing between said battery pack and said electrical device.” It is, however,
`
`impossible for the switch to be inside and outside the battery pack housing simultaneously.
`
`Complainants do not provide any argument that the labels “a battery pack” in claim 14 of the ’994
`
`patent and claim 1 of the ’207 patent are limiting or that “a deep cycle battery” in claim 12 of
`
`the ’994 patent is limiting. See CBr. at 20–24.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 14 Of The ’994 Patent Cannot Be Corrected In the ITC
`
`The error in claim 14 of the ’994 patent preamble that recites “a 1 [sic] volt to 120 volt
`
`operating system” instead of “a 12 volt to 120 volt operating system” cannot be corrected in the
`
`ITC. The Federal Circuit has held that where a material error in a claim is not evident from the
`
`face of the patent, courts lack the authority to correct the error. H-W Tech. L.C. v. Overstock.com
`
`Inc., 758 F.3d 1329, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not have authority to correct
`
`the error in claim 9” where “the error is not ‘evident from the face of the patent’”). Here, the error
`
`is not apparent from the face of the patent and can only be identified through a detailed review of
`
`the prosecution history. Id. at 1334 (“evidence of error in the prosecution history alone [is]
`
`insufficient to allow the district court to correct the error”). This is especially true because the
`
`Applicant explicitly varied voltage ranges across the claims; compare:
`
`’994 patent, claim 1 – “12 volt to 120 volt”;
`
`’994 patent, claim 14 – “1 volt to 120 volt”;
`
`’207 patent, claim 1 – “6 volt to 48 volt”;
`
`’207 patent, claim 12 – “6 volt to 800 volt”; and
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`’207 patent, claim 21 – “12 volt to 120 volt”.
`
`Moreover, the Complainants’ failure to recognize the error and then perpetuating it in their
`
`infringement allegations against all Respondents corroborates that it was not apparent from the
`
`face. RBr. at 16–18.
`
`Staff contends the error can be corrected. But the Federal Circuit has held that, as a
`
`threshold issue, “[t]he error must be ‘evident from the face of the patent.’” Pavo Sols. LLC v.
`
`Kingston Tech. Co. Inc., 35 F.4th 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted); H-W Tech. L.C.,
`
`758 F.3d at 1333–34 (“the district court did not have authority to correct the error in claim 9”
`
`where “the error is not ‘evident from the face of the patent’”). Indeed, in Certain Multiple Mode
`
`Outdoor Grills & Parts Thereof Commission Opinion, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-895, 2015 WL
`
`13817118 (Feb. 20, 2015), the ITC explicitly found that the error could be corrected because it
`
`was apparent from the face of the patent. Id. (“the error in claim 10 is apparent on the face of
`
`the patent because claim 16, which depends from claim 10, recites ‘exhaust means of the first
`
`cover means.’”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Moreover, Pavo does not support the broad
`
`proposition that the court can correct errors that change the structure of the recited claim—only
`
`that the court can do so if the error in the claim was apparent from the face of the patent. Pavo, 35
`
`F.4th at 1374 (“the language as written doesn’t make sense … nothing in our case law precludes
`
`district courts from correcting obvious minor errors”) (emphasis added).
`
`That Complainants filed the Complaint in this action repeatedly asserting that every
`
`Respondent met the “1 volt to 120 volt” range is telling—not even the alleged inventor and
`
`Complainant Martin Koebler could recognize the error. “When, as here, a claim issues that omits
`
`a material limitation … the patentee cannot assert that claim until it has been corrected by the
`
`PTO. … Such a result would be inequitable and undermine the notice function of patents.” H-W
`
`7
`
`

`

`Tech. L.C., 758 F.3d at 1335. Further, the issued patent has been in the public eye for over eight
`
`years. Complainants could have properly sought correction in the USPTOat any time during that
`
`period butfailed to do so. Complainants should not be rewardedfortheir lack of due diligence by
`
`correcting an error that they had years to correct, as such an outcome would be “inequitable and
`
`undermine the notice function of patents.” Jd.
`
`B.
`
`The Balance and Cutoff Limitations Of The ’994 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“a circuit board within said housing configured to balance each
`individualcell within said housing”
`
`Claims|Complainants’ Proposed|Respondents’ Proposed Staff’s Proposed
`
`
`Construction*
`Construction
`
`Construction Claim 1
`
`
`
`Subject to Section 112, §6
`Indefinite under 35
`The phraseis not
`(Pre-AIA).
`U.S.C. § 112 96:
`governed by 35 U.S.C.
`and
`dependent|112 paragraph 6, as the
`claims
`claim language
`Function: “balance
`Function:
`adequately recites a
`each individualcell”
`force the cells to have
`structure to balance each
`identical voltages
`individualcell within said|Structure: no
`housing. Specifically, a
`corresponding
`Corresponding
`
`structure is the recited algorithm, source code,|Structure:
`“circuit board”that
`or flow chart is
`a circuit board, including
`includes “a plurality of
`disclosed for
`a controller or
`
`pairs of solid state performing the recited|microprocessor,
`
`switches”asis later function, therefore the|according to the
`recited in the claim. The
`term is indefinite
`implementations
`phrase should be givenits
`described in the
`Alternatively, if not
`plain and ordinary
`specification (e.g., 3:63-5,
`governed by 35 U.S.C.
`meaning whichis “a
`8:19-10:39) and claim 13,
`
`circuit board for forcing|§112 46, “balance each and equivalents thereof,
`the cell voltages to be
`individual cell” means
`configured to perform the
`
`identical and within their|“forceall of the cells to claimed function.
`specified operational
`have identical voltages”
`voltages.”
`
`In the alternative, if the
`ALJ were to deem it
`
`Alternatively, to the
`extent the term does not
`invoke Section 112, 46
`e-AITA), the phrase
`
`3 Table reflects constructionsset forth in Joint Chart ofAgreed and Disputed Constructions. See
`EDIS Doc. ID 840647.
`
`

`

`
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C.
`112 paragraph 6,
`
`Structure: “a circuit
`board, implementations
`described in the
`specification (e.g. FIGs 7,
`8, 17, 8:19 – 8:24, and
`9:4 – 9:14)
`
`Function: “forcing the
`cell voltages to be
`identical and within their
`specified operational
`voltages.”
`
`should be construed as
`“one or more circuit
`boards, comprising one or
`more electrical
`components, configured
`to force the cells to have
`identical voltages.”
`
`
`(a)
`
`Complainants Concede That The Balance Limitation Fails To
`Recite Sufficient Structure To Perform The Claimed Function
`Rendering The Limitation A Means-Plus-Function Limitation
`
`
`
`Despite contending that the balance limitation recites some structure, Complainants
`
`concede that claim 1 fails to recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Indeed,
`
`Complainants admit that a controller—which is not recited in the claim—is required to perform
`
`the balancing function. Accordingly, the balance limitation is a means-plus-function limitation.
`
`
`
`First, Complainants do not dispute that the circuit board recited in the claim is merely a
`
`“mounting structure.” RBr., Ex. 2 (Toliyat Decl.), at ¶ 44; CBr. at 10–11. Complainants
`
`acknowledge that a circuit board is merely “a flat piece of insulating material … on which electrical
`
`components are mounted.” CBr. at 10–11. Complainants rely upon Zeroclick to support their
`
`argument that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. CBr. at 11 (citing Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 891 F.3d
`
`1003, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). But Complainants’ reliance on Zeroclick is inapposite; unlike in
`
`Zeroclick, here the patentee concedes that the claim term is a generic component. Moreover,
`
`unlike in Zeroclick, Respondents have presented both intrinsic and extrinsic evidentiary support
`
`rebutting the presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. Critically, Complainants do not
`
`contend that a circuit board is sufficient structure for performing the balance function.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Second, although Complainants point to the “plurality of pairs of solid state switches”
`
`recited in the claim, Complainants do not contend that is sufficient structure for performing the
`
`balancing function. Indeed, these switches do not perform the balancing function. Ex. 2 (Toliyat
`
`Decl.) at ¶¶ 46–49. The patent itself explains that this switch configuration is “separate” from the
`
`balancing circuit. Ex. 1 (’994 patent) at 3:63–4:3. In other words, it is not the switches but rather
`
`a separate circuit that performs the balancing function. Tellingly, Complainants point to this
`
`configuration of switches as structure for both the balance and cutoff function limitations. CBr. at
`
`15–16, 19–20. But Complainants provide no explanation for how this same structure can be
`
`sufficient structure for performing multiple different functions.
`
`
`
`To the contrary, Complainants concede that the claimed configuration “requires a
`
`controller” to perform the balancing function. CBr., Ex. 6 (Baker Decl.), at ¶ 73; see also id. at
`
`¶¶ 57, 75. Yet the claim does not recite the controller (and associated programming) that is
`
`necessary structure for performing the claimed balancing function. Complainants’ own admission
`
`confirms that this limitation is a means-plus-function limitation. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (“§ 112, para. 6 will apply if … the claim term …
`
`recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’”) (quoting
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).4
`
`
`4 To the extent Complainants rely upon Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) to support the argument that the presumption remains
`“strong,” (CBr. at 9), Williamson “expressly overrule[d] the characterization of that presumption.”
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Complainants Concede That The Patent Does Not Disclose An
`Algorithm For Performing The Balance Function Rendering
`Claim 1 Indefinite.
`
`Because the patent does not disclose an algorithm for performing the balance function,
`
`Complainants resort to arguing that a POSA would have known how to implement an algorithm
`
`for performing that function. But a patentee is not entitled to claim scope covering any and all
`
`ways of performing a function. Instead, a means-plus-function limitation is limited to what is
`
`actually disclosed in the specification (and equivalents). Complainants’ further attempts to identify
`
`corresponding structure for the balance function fail as the cited portions (a) merely disclose a
`
`controller (without any associated algorithm), or (b) do not perform the balance function.
`
`(i)
`
`The Means-Plus-Function Analysis Focuses On What Is
`Disclosed In The Specification, Not What A POSA May
`Have Known To Implement
`
`Complainants confuse the means-plus-function analysis with an enablement analysis.
`
`Complainants’ argument that the patent sufficiently discloses corresponding structure because a
`
`POSA would have known how to implement an algorithm to achieve the claimed function (CBr.
`
`at 14–15, 18–19; CBr., Ex. 6 (Baker Decl.), at ¶¶ 67, 71–72, 74, 86, 88) is not the proper legal
`
`standard. Rather, “[t]he inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification
`
`itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing
`
`that structure.” Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1337 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (quoting Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs., Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
`
`In other words, the means-plus-function analysis is not “[w]hether the disclosure would enable
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention” but rather is “whether [the] patent
`
`discloses structure that is used to perform the claimed function.” Id. at 1336; see also Biomedino,
`
`490 F.3d at 953 (internal citation omitted) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would
`
`understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`capable of implementing a structure. Accordingly, a b