throbber
View Full Docket

Case Title

Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software

Docket Number

337-710

Court

United States International Trade Commission

Document Title

Opinion, Commission No. 467457

Date Filed

12/29/2011
Download All
Cite Document
Download Current View
PUBLIC VERSION

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.

Investigation N0. 337-TA-710




MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES

In the Matter of

CERTAIN PERSONAL DATA AND

AND RELATED SOFTWARE

COMMISSION OPINION



PUBLIC VERSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... .. 3

II. VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 ....................................................................................... .. 7

A. The ’263 Patent ................................................................................................................. .. 7

1.

2

“Realtime API” ............................................................................................................. .. 8

“Device Handler” ........................................................................................................ .. 12

3. A Realtime API “Coupled Between” Two Subsystems ............................................. .. 15
4.
Inconsistency Between the ID’s Infringement and Invalidity Analyses ..................... .. 16
5
“Adapter Subsystem” .................................................................................................. .. 22
6
Summary of Findings for the ’263 Patent ................................................................... .. 22

B.

The ’647 Patent ............................................................................................................... .. 23

1.

“Linking Actions to the Detected Structures” (claim 1) and
“Linking at Least One Action to the Detected Structure” (claim 15) .................... .. 23
The Ordering of Claim 15’s Steps .............................................................................. .. 30
2.
Linking Structures to Multiple Actions in the Accused Products ............................... .. 31
3.
Gl0bal~Tec/2 Appliances, Inc. V. SEB S.A., No. 10-6 (U.S. May 31, 2011) ................ .. 31
4.
5. HTC’s Motion for Summary Determination of Intervening Rights ........................... .. 32
6.
Summary of Findings for the ’647 Patent ................................................................... .. 34

C. The 721 Patent ............................................................................................................... .. 35

1.
2.
3.
4.

“Processing Means” .................................................................................................... .. 35
“Dynamic Binding” .................................................................................................... .. 46
“Dynamic Binding” Under the ALJ’s Construction ................................................... .. 50
Summary of Findings for the ’72l Patent ................................................................... .. 51

D. The ’983 Patent ............................................................................................................... .. 51

1
2.
3.
4
5

“Loading” .................................................................................................................... .. 52
“Selectively Load Required Object-Oriented Methods” ............................................ .. 55
“Executable Program Memory” Limitations .............................................................. .. 63
The ALJ’s Striking a Portion of HTC’s Expert Report .............................................. .. 65
Summary of Findings for the ’983 Patent ................................................................... .. 66

III. REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING ............................................ .. 66

A. Remedy and the Public Interest ...................................................................................... .. 67
1.
Limited Exclusion Order ............................................................................................. .. 67

2.

Cease and Desist Order ............................................................................................... .. 84

B. Bonding ........................................................................................................................... .. 84

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. .. 86

-2-



1.

INTRODUCTION

PUBLIC VERSION

The Commission instituted this investigation on February 24, 2010, based on a complaint

filed by Apple Inc., and its subsidiary NeXT Software, Inc., both of Cupertino, California

(collectively, “Apple”), alleging a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended,

19 U.S.C. § 1337, in the importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after

importation of certain personal data and mobile communications devices and related software by

reason of infringement of certain claims of ten patents.

75 Fed. Reg. 17434. Respondents are

High Tech Computer Corp. of Taoyuan City, Taiwan and its United States subsidiaries HTC

America Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedia, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively,

“HTC”).1 The accused products are certain HTCJ smartphones running the Android operating

system.

On July 15, 2011, the ALJ issued his final Initial Determination (“ID”). By that time, the

investigation had been narrowed to certain claims of four patents:

claims 1, 2, 24, and 29 of U.S.

Patent No. 6,343,263 (“the ’263 patent”); claims 1, 3, 8, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647

(“the ’647 patent”); claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721 (“the ’72l patent”); and claims

1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983 (“the ’983 patent”). The four patents are unrelated. The

1 Five of the ten patents asserted by Apple in this investigation were also asserted by Apple
against Nokia Corp. of Espoo. Finland and Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York (collectively
“Nokia”) in Investigation No. 337-TA—704. On motion by the Commission investigative attorney
in the 704 investigation and by the respondents in both investigations, the Chief Administrative
Law Judge transferred Apple’s assertion of overlapping patents against Nokia from the 704
investigation into the 710 investigation. See Certain Mobile Communications and Computer
Devices and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA—704, Order No. 5 (Apr. 26, 2010).
Subsequently, Apple and Nokia entered a settlement agreement, and on July 21, 201 l, the
Commission determined not to review the presiding Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
termination of the investigation as to Nokia on the basis of settlement.



PUBLIC VERSION

’263 patent discloses a telecommunications interface for real—time data processing. The ’647

patent discloses automatically highlighting structures (e. g. , telephone numbers, email addresses,

and names) in a document such as an email message or word-processing file to enable certain

linked actions (e. g. , calling that telephone number, adding the address to an electronic telephone

book, or composing an email to that email address). The ’72l and ’983 patents both involve

aspects of obj ect-oriented programming.

Based substantially on certain claim constructions, the ID found that none of the asserted

patent claims were invalid. With respect to infringement and domestic industry, the ID found as

follows:

.1

-
-‘.9
2:22:23 )n 0n finséizws £3; tize 38



’263 claims 1, 2, 24, 29
’647 claims 1, 8, 15, 19

’647 claim 3

Unn claims 1, 5, 6

’983 claims 1, 7

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

i

Accordingly, the ID found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337,

with respect to the asserted claims of the ’263 patent and all but one of the asserted claims of the

’647 patent? The ALJ recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order, that zero bond be

2 The ALJ found that HTC did not infringe claim 3 of the ’647 patent, and Apple did not
petition for review of the ALJ’s noninfringement finding for that claim. Accordingly, there can
be no violation of section 337 as to that claim.



PUBLIC VERSION

posted during the Presidential review period, and that no cease and desist order issue.

HTC, Apple, and the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) each petitioned for review

of the ID, and each filed responses to the others’ petitions. On September 15, 2011, the

Commission determined to review several issues regarding each of the four patents asserted in this

investigation. 76 Fed. Reg. 58,537 (Sept. 21, 2011).

In response, the parties filed opening and

reply briefs.3 In addition, three non-parties filed comments on remedy, the public interest, and

bonding: Google Inc. (“Google”); T—Mobile USA, Inc. (“T—Mobile”); and The Association for

Competitive Technology (“ACT”).4

3 Apple filed separate briefs on the issues under review and on remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. HTC’s opening brief consolidated these matters, but it filed separate replies.
Compl’ts Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.’s Written Submission in Response to the
Commission’s Determination to Rev. in Part a Final ID Finding a Violation of Section 337 (Oct. 6,
2011) (“Apple BL”); Compl’ts Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.’s Written Submission on
Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (Oct. 6, 2011”) (“Apple Remedy Br.”); The HTC
Resp’ts’ Opening Br. on ComIn’n Rev. (Oct. 6, 2011) (“HTC Br.”); Office of Unfair Import
Investigations’ Resp. to Questions Posed in the Comm’n’s Notice of Sept. 15, 2011, and Briefing
on the Issues of Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (Oct. 6, 2011) (“IA Br.”); Compl’ts
Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.’s Reply to Respondents and OUII’s Respective Written
Submissions in Resp. to the Notice of Comm’n Determination to Rev. in Part a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 (Oct. 17, 2011) (“Apple Reply Br.”); Compl’ts
Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.’s Reply on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (Oct.
17, 2011”) (“Apple Remedy Reply Br.”); The HTC Resp’ts’ Reply to the Briefs of Compl’t and
the Office of Unfair Import Investigations on the Issues Under Review (Oct. 17, 2011) (“HTC
Reply Biz”); The HTC Resp’ts’ Reply to the Briefs of Cornpl’t and the Office of Unfair Import
Investigations on Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest (Oct. 17, 2011) (“HTC Remedy Reply
Br.”); Office of Unfair Import Investigations’ Reply to Apple’s and HTC’s Initial Responses to the
Cornm’n’s Notice of Sept. 15, 2011, and Briefing on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
(Oct. 17, 2011) (“IA Reply Br.”). HTC’s briefing totaled more than 300 pages of argument,
App1e’s nearly as much, all exclusive of supporting materials.

4 Submission of Google Inc. in Resp. to the Comm’n’s Sept. 21, 2011 Request for Written
Submissions on the Issues of Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding in Inv. No. 337—TA—7l0
(Oct. 6, 2011) (“Google Remedy BL”); Third-Party T—Mobile USA, Inc.’s Statement Regarding
the Public Interest (Oct. 6, 2011) (“T-Mobile Remedy Br.”); Reply Comments of the Association
for Competitive Technology in Resp. to the Comm’n’s Sept. 21, 2011 Request for Written
[Footnote continued on the next page]

-5-



PUBLIC VERSION

On review, we have determined to affirm the ALJ’s finding of a violation of section 337 as

to claims 1 and 8 of the ’647 patent. We affirm the ALJ’s finding of no violation of section 337 as

to the ’72l patent and the ’983 patent. We reverse the ALJ’s finding of a violation of section 337

as to the ’263 patent and claims l5 and 19 of the ’647 patent. Our conclusions bearing on the

violation of section 337 are as follows:

"fies Ce§z“z::2%ss§=:s;2’s Beierzrairzaéiezzs on Review



'253 claims 1, 2,
24’ 29

No

No

Only under Apple's
-
construction of
"realtime APl”

’647 claims 1, 8

Yes

Yes

’647 claims 15, 19

No position

Yes

’7Z1 claims 1, 5, 6

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

'98?» claims 1, 7

No

No

Only under Apple's

construction of

”selectively load" to

include class loading

[Footnote continuedfiom the previous page]
Submissions on the Issues of Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding (Oct. 26, 2011) (“ACT
Remedy Br.”). On October 18, 2011, the Commission granted ACT’s motion for an extension of
time to file its comments. Thus, ACT’s comments were filed closer in time to the parties’ reply
comments, and ACT referred to its comments as a “reply.” Google and T—Mobile did not file
reply comments. We hereby grant ACT’s subsequent motion for leave to file a corrected version
of its comments to fix certain typographical errors.



PUBLIC VERSION

The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order,

and that the exclusion of articles subject to the order shall commence on April 19, 2012.

In

addition, the exclusion order contains an exemption permitting HTC to import into the United

States until December 19, 2013 refurbished handsets to be provided to consumers as replacements

under warranty or an insurance contract. The Commission has determined that Apple has not

demonstrated that a bond is appropriate during the Presidential review period, and has determined

not to issue a cease and desist order.

II.

VIOLATION OF SECTION 337

A.

The ’263 Patent

Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 24, and 29, have been asserted from this

patent, which is entitled “Real—time Signal Processing System for Serially Transmitted Data.”

The ’263 patent issued on January 29, 2002, and discloses a telecommunications interface for

real-time data processing. Although the patent’s written description (including the patent claims)

uses the terms “real-time” or “realtime” nearly 200 times, the parties disputed its meaning before

the ALJ. The ALJ construed “realtime” as “within a defined upper bounded time limit.” ID at

32. The construction ofthat term is no longer in dispute.

5

The Commission granted review on

5 The patent equates realtime processing to processing of “isochrononous streams of data.”
Col. 2 lines 26-36, 42-50. The patent references the definition of isochronous data from U.S.
Patent No. 5,515,373 col. 11 lines 43-51, which shares the same inventors, and which the ’263
patent disclosure incorporates by reference at col. 3 lines 30-37. The ’263 patent distinguishes
“isochronous data handling” from “a burst mode.” Col. 2 lines 26-33. One dictionary defines
“burst mode” as a “mode of transmission by which a system can send a burst of data at higher
speed for some period of time.” IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
Terms 128 (7th ed. 2000). Because “realtime” is not disputed before the Commission, we provide
this discussion for context regarding the now-agreed—upon construction’s requirement of a
“defined upper bounded time limit.”



PUBLIC VERSION

five issues. See Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. 58537, -38 (Sept. 21, 2011). These issues include two

claim constructions (“realtime API” and “device handler”), as well as certain questions of

infringement, invalidity, and domestic industry independent of those constructions.

1.

“Realtime API”

The ALJ construed the term “realtime API” in claim 1 as an “API that allows realtime

interaction between two or more subsystems.” ID at 41.

In its petition for review, HTC

contended that the ALJ’s construction is erroneous, and that under a proper construction, neither

its products nor App1e’s domestic industry products practice the asserted patent claims. The

Commission granted review. See Notice, 76 Fed. Reg. 58537, -38 (Sept. 21, 2011) (Issue No. 1).

a)

Claim Construction

Asserted claim 1 includes “at least one realtime application program interface (API)

coupled between the subsystem and the realtime signal processing subsystem to allow the
9
subsystem to interoperate with said realtime services.’ The claim construction issue regarding

this “realtime API” boils down to whether the term “realtime” modifies each term it precedes in

the asserted claims including “API.” HTC contends that it does, and the IA agrees. HTC Br.

3-11; IA Pet. 5-7. For each component to operate in “realtime” is to say that the component itself

operates within certain limits to ensure that the data stream can be processed in realtime, 1'. e. , that

all frames of video are displayed, or that all packets of voice data are transmitted in time. See

HTC Br. 4-8; IA Pet. 5-7.

App1e’s proposed construction, adopted by the ALJ, found that any “API that allows

realtime interaction between” subsystems is a “realtime API.” ID at 41. We find that this



PUBLIC VERSION

construction improperly reads the term “realtime” out ofthe API limitation.6 See, e.g., Bicon, Inc.

v. Straumann Ca, 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“claims are interpreted with an eye toward

giving effect to all terms in the claim”). Specifically, the ALJ’s construction makes the term

“realtime” in connection with the API at most nominal and without any purpose of its own.7 That

the ALJ’s construction for the “realtime API” includes the word “realtime” does not make the

usage as construed any less nominal. Under Apple’s and the ALJ’s reading, the only operative

use of realtime is the “realtime signal” itself, and the mere processing of the realtime signal under

that reading necessarily gives rise to the existence of a “realtime API.” We do not believe that a

person of ordinary skill would read all these terms merely as nominal surplusage.8 Rather, we

conclude that a person of ordinary skill would understand that the term “realtime API” to mean

that the API itself has defined upper bounded time limits. See, e. g. , Tr. 1329-1343, 1367-71 ,

6 App1e’s proposed construction also read “realtime” out of the “realtime signal processing
subsystem” limitation of claim 1:
“a realtime signal processing subsystem for performing a
plurality of data transforms comprising a plurality of realtime signal processing operations.” On
review, HTC has focused only on the realtime API. Apple has not argued that it would be wrong
to impose a “realtime” limitation on the API because the subsystem cannot accommodate a
“realtime” limitation. Having reviewed the record, we believe that it would be proper to impose
this limitation on the subsystem, and Apple has waived any argument to the contrary, see Apple
Br. 2-7; Apple Reply Br. 4-13.

7 This nominal usage applies not merely for the API (and the subsystem) of claim 1, but
also for many limitations across the patent claims (asserted and unasserted): “realtime processor
including a realtime operating system” (claim 4); “virtual realtime device” (claim 7); and “realtime
engine” (claim 8).

8 Based on the reasoning adopted in the ID, and which Apple defends before the
Commission, a computer running Skype videoconferencing is “realtime” so long as Skype works
properly, but once the computer buckles under the weight of other tasks and starts dropping
frames, then the system is no longer realtime. Tr. 714-720 (Apr. 20, 2011) (Apple expert
Nathaniel Polish). Thus, under this reasoning, as computer speeds increase, systems that had not
been realtime suddenly become so through happenstance, and through no specific architectural
detail such as a “realtime subsystem” or “realtime API.”



1451-55.

PUBLIC VERSION

In adopting HTC’s proposed construction, we observe that unasserted claim 31 recites an

API without the “realtime” modifier:

“at least one application programming interface for

receiving the requests generated by said device handler program .

.

. .”9 The applicant, therefore,

knew how to claim any API that would function in a realtime system, in the manner that Apple

contends claim l should be interpreted.

We reject two of Apple’s arguments that the ALJ found influential:

(1) treating

“realtime” as a limitation throughout the claims leads to absurd results (though not with respect to

the API itself); and (2) the patent specification does not disclose how each component enforces

realtime limitations.

ID at 26 n.l3, 29. With respect to the first argument, Apple stated that

claim 24’s “realtime processor including an operating system” would make no sense if the

processor is realtime but the operating system is not. The ALJ agreed.

Id. However, the

omission of “realtime” with respect to the operating system recited in claim 24 does not make the

operating system “not realtime” as the ALJ assumed; as to those components the claims simply do

not require them to be realtime. Similarly, the fact that the preamble of claim 1 describes a

“signal processing system” without “realtime,” but the claim calls for a “realtime signal processing

subsystem,” is not problematic. For one, no party has argued that the preamble of claim 1 is

limiting. For another, the claim language establishes that some aspects of the system must be

realtime (those specified), while others may or may not be (those that are not so specified).

With respect to Apple’s second argument, Apple states that finding the term “realtime” to

9 The patent claims have other examples of components not specifically described as
“realtime,” for example, a “translation interface program” (claim 4), and a “device handler
program” (claim 3 l).

-10-



PUBLIC VERSION

have meaning as a modifier is contravened by insufficient guidance in the specification about

enforcement of limitations. Cf id. at 29; Apple Reply Br. 9-10; cf col. 5 lines 37-63; col. 6 lines

48-52, col. 6 line 67 - col. 7 line 4; col. 7 lines 8-12; col. 7 lines 46-51; col. 8 line 57-64 (resource

allocation and assessment). No party has argued, however, that the claims are invalid as

construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112. To the extent that the Commission must choose between mere

inferences from the specification and the plain meaning of the claim terms as informed by the

intrinsic record as a whole, the Commission chooses the latter.

We also reject the ALJ’s finding that treating “realtime” as a limitation is inconsistent with

the “flexibility” emphasized by the patent specification.

ID at 28-29 (citing col. 1 lines 30-32;

col. 11 lines 7-10). We do not find that rationale persuasive, as virtually any limitation would

undermine flexibility, and adopting this rationale would be tantamount to applying a canon of

construction favoring the unduly broad.”

b)

Infringement and Domestic Industry

Apple does not make substantial infringement and domestic industry arguments under the

Commission’s construction of “realtime API,” and there is no genuine dispute that the identified

API in both the HTC and Apple products do not operate within a “defined upper bounded time

limit” as the unchallenged construction of “realtime” requires. See HTC Br. 11-13. Rather,

Apple contends that the construction is not “faithful to the intrinsic evidence.” Apple Br. 7. For

10 The ID’s discussion of “hard realtime” and “soft realtime” on pages 29-32 is inapposite
with respect to the issue under Commission review. Most of that discussion related to “without
handling delays,” a limitation on realtime urged by HTC but not pursued on Commission review.
The ALJ’s construction of “realtime” as “within a defined, upper bounded time limit” does not
have the effect, when applied to the claimed realtime subsystem and realtime API, of transforming
the claimed system into a rigid hard-wired device eschewed by the ID.

-11-



PUBLIC VERSION

the reasons set forth above, we disagree and find that neither the accused products nor Apple’s

domestic industry products practice the “realtirne API” limitation. As we will discuss below,

however, even if Apple’s construction of “realtirne API” were to be accepted, the asserted patent

claims would be invalid in view of AT&T’s VCOS system under that construction.

2.

“Device Handler”

The ALJ construed the term “device handler,” which appears in claims 1 and 24, as Apple

and the IA had proposed:

“software associated with an interface device that sets up dataflow

paths, and also presents data and commands to a realtime signal processing subsystem.” ID at 41,

44. HTC had urged a different construction:

“a software module specific to a device that sets up

dataflow paths, and presents data and commands to the realtime signal processing system.” ID at

41. We granted review of HTC’s petition for review of the claim construction of “device

handler” and the application of that construction to infringement and domestic industry. Notice,

76 Fed. Reg. 58537, -38 (Sept. 21, 2011) (Issue No. 2).

a)

Claim Construction

As noted above, HTC sought to add the requirement that the device handler be “specific to

93

the device.

See id.

In its briefing on Commission review, HTC no longer seeks to add that

construction to the “device handler” limitation. Rather, HTC claims that its previous arguments

in support of that construction now support a different argument that “associated with” in the

ALJ’s construction means that “the device handler must know .

.

. about the device it supposedly

handles,” as opposed to the device handler “merely be[ing] somewhere in the data path for data

that originated at the ‘device.’” HTC Br. 23. Tellingly, HTC offers no construction. We agree

with Apple, Apply Reply Br. 16, that the issue, as presented by HTC, is not one of claim

construction, and to the extent that it is, the claim construction issue has been waived.

-12-



PUBLIC VERSION

We observe that the petitions and briefs in this investigation are replete with efforts by

HTC and Apple to label many or most disputed issues to be disputed issues of claim construction,

even when there was no dispute as to the meaning of a term, or after a party’s own construction had

been adopted. These attempts cut across all the patents and are improper. The Commission was

mindful to specify expressly in its review notice (which issued in the Federal Register on

September 21, 2011) those issues that fairly involved claim constructions, and those in which the

only issue genuinely in dispute was the application of a claim construction, z'.e. , infringement,

validity, or domestic industry. There is a distinction between a claim construction and application

of the claim construction. See, e. g., Tessera, Inc. v. ITC, 646 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Disagreements over an application of a construction - a finding of infringement or invalidity and

the analysis therefor — do not themselves give rise to opportunities, after the fact, to change the

agreed-upon or adopted constructions. Commission proceedings are not an iterative process

whereby each unfavorable resolution results in an opportunity to offer a changed construction, or

to construe the construction, in the hope of effecting a different outcome.

b)

Infringement

HTC takes issue with how the term “presents data” in the ALJ’s construction of “device

handler” is applied with regard to the accused products. HTC believes that the device handlers in

its accused products do not present data because they do not themselves “receive or transmit data”;

rather, they direct the flow elsewhere. See, e. g., HTC Br. 15-17. The constructions proposed by

all the parties and the construction adopted by the ALJ included “presents data,” see ID at 41, and

not “receives or transmits data,” as argued now by HTC. We reject HTC’s attempt to create a

-13-



PUBLIC VERSION

claim construction dispute,” and we affirm the ALJ’s determination that the accused products

contain a claimed device handler.

ID at 48-49.

HTC also takes issue with whether the accused device handlers are “associated with an

interface device” as urged by Apple and as required by the ALJ's construction.

Id. at 41, 44.

HTC argues that this, too, is a matter of claim construction, HTC Br. 23, but here, too, we disagree.

The claim has been construed, and all that is at issue on review is application of the construction.

HTC does not invite the Commission to adopt the construction it previously urged, that the device

handler be “specific to” a device. HTC Br. 23-27.

Instead, HTC takes issue with the application

of the ALJ’s construction, which we find to be a question of infringement.” We agree with the

11 Even were we to consider the issue in the context of claim construction, we would reject
HTC’s proposed construction of the construction. HTC does not offer a dictionary definition in
support of its argument, and we do not believe that a dictionary definition supports HTC.
2 The
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2340 (1993) (providing as its first definition of the verb
“present”:
“Make present, bring into the presence of”).
Instead, HTC relies on the specification
and figures, which show the preferred embodiments handler's reception and transmission of data.
HTC Br. 16.
In particular, HTC argues that Figure 2 shows data passing through the adapter
handler 44.
Id. Thus, HTC argues that the specification shows that the device handler act of
“presenting data” is to “receive or transmit data.” HTC’s arguments, we believe, represent an
improper incorporation into the claim language of the preferred embodiment’s limitations. We
reject HTC’s construction without reaching Apple’s counterargument that HTC’s construction
would exclude the preferred embodiment. See Apple Reply Br. 17-20; HTC Br. 18-23.
Accordingly, if the question were one of claim construction, we agree with the ALJ.

12 Again, even were we to consider the issue in the context of claim construction, we
would reject HTC’s proposed construction of the construction. HTC does not rely on any
dictionary definition to support its narrow interpretation of “associated with” to mean something
akin to “specific to.” Rather, HTC declares that the plain meaning is to the contrary, HTC Br. 26,
and then argues that intrinsic and extrinsic evidence support its interpretation, id. at 26-31. HTC's
argument is based principally on a passage from the ’263 patent specification:
“An adapter
handler 44 is specific to the particular adapter 36 and carries out features associated with that
adapter.” Col. 5 lines 8-9. The ALJ found that this passage related to the preferred embodiment
and did not constrain the construction of “handler” generally.
ID at 43. We agree.
In addition,
we find that the extrinsic evidence cited by HTC, Tr. 228-31, 275 (Lynch); Tr. 666-68 (Polish); Tr.
[Footnote continued on the next page]

-14-



PUBLIC VERSION

ALJ’s infringement analysis at pages 49-50 of the ID, and conclude that the accused devices

contain the claimed “device handlers.”13

3.

A Realtime API “Coupled Between” Two Subsystems

Claim 1 requires that the realtime API be “coupled between the subsystem and the realtime

signal processing subsystem,” 1'. e., between the structures of the first two elements of the claim.

The parties agreed that “coupled between” should be construed as “functionally connected to, but

distinct from.”14 The ALJ found that HTC’s accused products practice the “realtime API”

limitation because the “.h” header files in the accused Android products are “coupled between”

two subsystems as required by claim 1.

ID at 36-37, 56-59.

It is unclear why the ALJ merged

some of his infringement discussion into his claim construction analysis, see id. at 36-37, as the

only question at issue is whether HTC infringes the patent claims on the basis of these “.h” header

files under the claim construction agreed upon by the parties. We determined to review the

infringement question. 76 Fed. Reg. 58537-38 (Sept. 21, 1011) (Issue No. 3) (“Whether the API

of the accused products is ‘coupled between’ two subsystems”).

Despite the Commission’s limitation of review on this point to infringement, HTC

argues that the question on review is properly one of claim construction. HTC Br. 29-31. We

disagree. As noted, HTC’s noninfringement argument is based on the fact that the accused APIs

[Footnote continuedflom the previous page]
1297-98 (Brandt), is consistent with the plain meaning of “associated wit
question were one of claim construction, we agree with the ALJ.

97

.

Accordingly, if the

13 HTC’s domestic industry argument is predicated on its “associated with” argument that
we have rejected in connection with infringement. See HTC Br. 28-29.

14 Joint Mot. of All Relevant Parties to Amend the Joint List of Undisputed Claim Terms
with Agreed Constructions App. A at 14 (Feb. 24, 2011).

-15-



PUBLIC VERSION

are “header files,” also known as “.h” files. HTC Br. 33-34. As such, these files are prepended

(as headers) to other files. See id. at 33 & n.l0. HTC argues that because the headers are

attached to code that Apple accused as the realtime signal processing subsystem, the headers could

no longer be an intermediary that is “functionally connected to, but distinct from” the two

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


Or .

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.