Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 249 Page ID #:3848
`
`
`Ryan E. Hatch (SBN 235577)
`rhatch@linerlaw.com
`Jason L. Haas (SBN 217290)
`jhaas@linerlaw.com
`LINER LLP
`1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90024.3518
`Telephone: (310) 500-3500
`Facsimile:
`(310) 500-3501
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff SIGNAL IP, INC.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`(Related to 2:14-cv-02962-JAK
`(JEMx); SA CV14-00497-JAK (JEMx);
`8:14-cv-00491-JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-
`02963 JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-02457-
`JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-03111-JAK
`(JEMx); LA CV14-03109 JAK (JEMx);
`2:14-cv-03107-JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-
`03113-JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-03108-
`JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-03114-JAK
`(JEMx))
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF
`
`Date: March 31, 2015
`Time: 8:30 a.m.
`Crtrm.: 750
`
`The Hon. John A. Kronstadt
`
`Trial Date:
`TBD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC., a California
`corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
`INC., a California corporation;
`HONDA OF AMERICA MFG, INC.,
`an Ohio corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`HN-1009
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 249 Page ID #:3849
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`C.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................... 2
`A. Defendants’ Statement ............................................................................ 2
`B.
`Signal’s Statement ................................................................................... 3
`III. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................... 5
`A. Defendants’ Statement on Indefiniteness................................................ 5
`B.
`VWGOA and Bentley’s Statement – Extrinsic Evidence is Not
`Required to Prove Indefiniteness ............................................................ 6
`Signal’s Statement ................................................................................... 9
`1.
`Defendants Failed to Meet Their Burden of Proof to Show
`Indefiniteness ................................................................................ 9
`‘927 Patent ............................................................................................ 13
`D.
`Defendants’ Summary of ‘927 Patent ............................................................. 13
`1.
`Preamble (Claim 1) ..................................................................... 16
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 16
`(b) Honda’s Statement ........................................................... 17
`(c)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 18
`“Variable sustain time” (Claims 1 and 2) ................................... 18
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 18
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 24
`“Wherein the zone of coverage appears to increase
`according to the variable sustain time” (Claim 1) ...................... 25
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 25
`(b) VWGoA and Bentley’s Separate Statement .................... 31
`(c) Honda’s Alternative Construction .................................... 32
`(d)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 34
`“A threshold time” (Claim 1) ..................................................... 40
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 40
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`i
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 249 Page ID #:3850
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`5.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 44
`(b)
`“Improving the perceived zone of coverage” (Claim 1) ............ 45
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 45
`(b) VWGoA and Bentley’s Separate Statement .................... 47
`(c)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 48
`‘375 Patent ............................................................................................ 49
`E.
`Defendants’ Summary of ‘375 Patent ............................................................. 49
`6.
`“Force distribution” (Claim 1) .................................................... 51
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 51
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 53
`“On the passenger seat” (Claim 1) ............................................. 55
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 55
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 58
`“Seat area” (Claim 1) ................................................................. 60
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 60
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 64
`“Sensor array” / “Array of force sensors” (Claim 1) .................. 66
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 66
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 69
`“Seat area threshold force” (Claim 1) ......................................... 71
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 72
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 74
`“Concentrated” (Claim 1) .......................................................... 75
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 75
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 78
`‘007 Patent ............................................................................................ 80
`F.
`Defendants’ Summary of the ‘007 Patent ....................................................... 80
`12.
`“Seat sensors” (Claims 1, 17, 18 & 19) ...................................... 80
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`ii
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 249 Page ID #:3851
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 80
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 83
`“Lock flag” / “Flag” (Claims 1 & 17) ........................................ 84
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 85
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 87
`“For a time” / “For a given time” (Claims 1 & 17) .................... 88
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 88
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 91
`“A second threshold” (Claim 20) ............................................... 92
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 93
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 94
`“Relative weight parameter” (Claims 1, 17, 20-22) ................... 95
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ..................................................... 96
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................ 99
`“Setting” / “Set a lock flag when…” (Claims 1, 17) ................ 100
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 101
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 103
`“A level indicative of an empty seat” (Claims 1, 17) ............... 104
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 104
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 106
`“Arrayed in an interface defined by the bottom surface”
`(Claim 19) ................................................................................. 109
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 110
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 112
`“Means for selectively allowing deployment according to
`the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an
`occupant” (Claim 1) .................................................................. 113
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 114
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 117
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`iii
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 249 Page ID #:3852
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`(i)
`
`(iv)
`
`Legal Standard for Means-Plus-Function
`Analysis ................................................................ 117
`(ii) The Limitations Are Not in Means-Plus-
`Function Format Because a POSA Would
`Identify Structure in the Claims ........................... 118
`(iii) Defendants’ Arguments Fail Because they
`Provide No Evidence from a POSA..................... 120
`If the Claims are in Means-Plus-Function
`Format, then the Corresponding Structure is
`the Microprocessor ............................................... 121
`“Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment according
`to whether a seat is occupied by a person of at least a
`minimum weight” (Claim 17) .................................................. 124
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 125
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 127
`‘486 Patent .......................................................................................... 128
`G.
`Defendants’ Summary of the ‘486 Patent ..................................................... 128
`22.
`“Desired warning distance based upon the current steering
`angle” / “Desired Warning Distance” (Claims 21 and 28) ....... 129
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 129
`(b) Honda’s Position ............................................................ 132
`(c) BMWNA’s Position on “desired warning distance” ...... 133
`(d)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 135
`(i)
`The Warning Distance Need Not Always
`“Vary” Depending On the Current Steering
`Angle .................................................................... 135
`(ii) Not All Objects Within the Warning Distance
`Will Result in an Alarm ....................................... 137
`(iii) There is No Basis for Requiring the Distance
`to be “Defined” .................................................... 138
`‘601 Patent .......................................................................................... 138
`H.
`Defendants’ Summary of the ‘601 Patent ..................................................... 138
`23.
`“During conditions when…” (Claims 8 and 15) ...................... 139
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 139
`
`21.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`iv
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 6 of 249 Page ID #:3853
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 141
`(b)
`“Threshold torque range indicative of conditions of
`relatively low vehicle torque demand” (Claim 8) .................... 142
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 143
`(b) VWGoA and Bentley's Separate Statement ................... 148
`(c) Honda’s Alternative Argument. ..................................... 150
`(d)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 151
`(i)
`The Term “Threshold Torque Range…” is
`Definite and Refers to the Vehicle’s Engine ....... 151
`(ii) Honda’s Construction is Incorrect ....................... 157
`“De-engaging/re-engaging,” etc. .............................................. 157
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 158
`(i)
`Engage/De-Engage and Activate/Deactivate
`Terms .................................................................... 158
`“Signal” Terms ..................................................... 160
`(ii)
`Signal IP Statement ........................................................ 162
`(b)
`“Region of relatively high and low efficiency,” etc.
`(Claims 15 and 17) .................................................................... 163
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 164
`(b) VWGoA and Bentley’s Separate Statement .................. 166
`(c) Nissan and Honda Separate Statement ........................... 169
`(d)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 172
`(i)
`The Term “Region of Relatively High and
`Low Efficiency” (and Related Terms) is
`Definite and Refers to the Vehicle’s Engine ....... 172
`(ii) Defendants’ Alternative Proposed
`Constructions Are Contrary to the Evidence ....... 175
`“Mapping” / “Mapping the respective regions of
`relatively high and low efficiency in an efficiency map for
`the propulsion unit” (Claims 15 & 17) ..................................... 176
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 176
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 179
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`v
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 7 of 249 Page ID #:3854
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`28.
`
`30.
`
`“Efficiency map” (Claims 15 and 17) ...................................... 181
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 181
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 183
`‘374 Patent .......................................................................................... 185
`I.
`Defendants’ Summary of the ‘374 Patent ..................................................... 185
`29.
`“All having the same data format but distinctive codes for
`tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters” (Claim
`1) ............................................................................................... 186
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 186
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 188
`“A switch activated by a vehicle user” (Claim 3) .................... 190
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 190
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 191
`“Sign-up message” (Claim 3) ................................................... 193
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 193
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 195
`“Each tire” (Claim 3) ................................................................ 196
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 197
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 199
`‘775 Patent .......................................................................................... 199
`J.
`Defendants’ Summary of the ‘775 Patent ..................................................... 200
`33.
`“Message rate” (Claim 6) ......................................................... 200
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 200
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 202
`“Message rate interval” (Claim 6) ............................................ 204
`(a) VWGoA and Bentley’s Statement ................................. 204
`(b) MBUSA’s Statement ...................................................... 209
`(c) BMWNA’s Position. ...................................................... 212
`(d)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 215
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`34.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`vi
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 8 of 249 Page ID #:3855
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`(i)
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`“Message Rate Interval” is Definite and
`Means “A Period of Time Corresponding to a
`Message Rate” ...................................................... 215
`(ii) Defendants’ Proposed Constructions are
`Incorrect ............................................................... 219
`“Message” (Claim 6) ................................................................ 221
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 221
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 222
`“Complete message” / “Fragment of a complete message”
`(Claim 6) ................................................................................... 223
`(a) Defendants’ Statement ................................................... 223
`(b)
`Signal’s Statement .......................................................... 224
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 227
`A. Defendant’s Statement ........................................................................ 227
`B.
`Signal’s Statement ............................................................................... 227
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`vii
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 9 of 249 Page ID #:3856
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abdou v. Alphatec Spine, Inc.,
`No. 12–CV–1804 BEN (RBB), 2014 WL 6611422 (S.D. Cal. Nov.
`19, 2014) ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`Absolute Software, Inv. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F. 3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 20, 41
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Advanced Display Techs. of Texas, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`Nos. 6:11–CV–011, –391, 2012 WL 2872121 (E.D. Tex. July 12,
`2012) .............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co.,
`927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 75
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................... 113, 119, 124
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1965 (Fed. Cir. Apr., 25, 2014) .............................. passim
`
`Aquatic AV, Inc. v. Magnadyne Corp.,
`No. C 14-01931 WHA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22925 (N.D. Cal.
`Feb. 25, 2015) ..................................................................................... 147, 166, 207
`
`Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
` 726 F.3d 1296, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................... 106
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech.,
`709 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 18
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`viii
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 10 of 249 Page ID
` #:3857
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Astrazeneca AB, Inc. v. Mutual Pharm. Co., Inc.,
`384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 21
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Bell Atlantic Network Serv’s, Inc. v. Covad Comm’s Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 21
`
`Bickerstaff v. Dr. Shrink, Inc.,
`1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21601 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....................................... 67, 69, 70
`
`Braintree Laboratories v. Novel Laboratories, Inc.,
`749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 90, 91
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................ 20, 56, 66, 70
`
`Cacace v. Meyer Mktg.,
`812 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .............................................................. 8, 11
`
`Caluori v. One World Technologies, Inc.,
`No. CV 07-2035 CAS VBKX, 2010 WL 4794234 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
`12, 2010) ....................................................................................................... 32, 167
`
`Cardio–Focus, Inc. v. Cardiogenesis Corp.,
`827 F.Supp.2d 36(D.Mass 2011) ........................................................................ 154
`
`Catalina Mrkt. Inter’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 16
`
`Corelogic Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135386 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2012) .............................. 119
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.,
`No. 2014-1301, Slip.............................................................................................. 57
`
`CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP,
`112 F.3d 1146 (Fed.Cir.1997) ............................................................................ 209
`
`D.M.I., Inc., v. Deere & Co.,
`755 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................... 198
`ix
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 11 of 249 Page ID
` #:3858
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Datatreasury Corp. v. Ingenico S.A.,
`2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31458 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2004).................................. 119
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 154
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 49, 147
`
`Diodem, LLC v. Lumenis Inc.,
`2005 WL 5651051 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004) ............................................... 75, 77
`
`Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.,
`261 U.S. 45, 43 S. Ct. 322, 67 L. Ed. 523, 1923 Dec. Comm'r Pat.
`623 (1923) ........................................................................................................... 148
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2010) .............................................................. 83, 148, 154
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 4
`
`Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co.,
`563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 2
`
`Freeny v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-00361-WCB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120446 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 28, 2014) .................................................................................... 148, 154
`
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................ 68, 69, 71
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 5, 143
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 56
`
`Guzik Technical Enters., Inc. v. W. Digital Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-03786-PSG, 2013 WL 3934892 (N.D. Cal. July 19,
`2013), appeal dismissed (Aug. 27, 2013) ........................................................... 144
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`x
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 12 of 249 Page ID
` #:3859
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... passim
`
`In re Hammack,
`427 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................ 96
`
`Hand Held Prods. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 12-768-RGA-MPT, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85345 (D. Del. June
`24, 2014) ................................................................................................... 8, 11, 225
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 20, 30
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc., v. United States,
`609 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................ 30, 31, 38, 217
`
`Horus Vision, LLC v. Applied Ballistics, LLC,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170470 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) ............................... 8, 11
`
`Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`732 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 211
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Input/Output, Inc. v. Sercel, Inc.,
`2007 WL 6196070 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 19, 2007) .................................................... 154
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 106
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Sep. 10, 2014) ...................................................................... passim
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 147, 154
`
`KLA-Tencor Corp. v. Xitronix Corp.,
`No. A–08–CA–723–SS, 2011 WL 318123 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31,
`2011) .............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`163 F. 3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................. 59, 65, 124
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`xi
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 13 of 249 Page ID
` #:3860
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................... 114, 115, 124
`
`Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S,
`618 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 219
`
`Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed.Cir.2004) .................................................................. 70, 83, 102
`
`Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. North Am. Corp.,
`744 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 116
`
`MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs, Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`147 F. App’x 158 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................... 8, 11
`
`Mangosoft, Inc. and Mangosoft Corp. v. Oracle Corp.,
`2004 US Dist LEXIS 19357 (DNH Sept 21, 2004) ........................................... 196
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 2, 4
`
`MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty & Closures, Inc.,
`731 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 32, 167
`
`Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Acella Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`2011 WL 810044 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2011) ......................................................... 214
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp.,
`2004 WL 1179338 (D. Minn. 2004) (unpublished) ........................................... 196
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (U.S. 2011) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`357 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 3
`
`Morton Intern., Inc. v. Cardinal Chemical Co.,
`5 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 207
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (U.S. 2014) .......................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`xii
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 53 Filed 03/11/15 Page 14 of 249 Page ID
` #:3861
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`Case No. C-10-04686 RMW, 2013 WL 2951039 (N.D. Cal. June
`14, 2013) ............................................................................................................. 197
`
`NexMed Holdings, Inc. v. Beta Techs., Inc.,
`2008 WL 2783522 (D.Utah 2008)...................................................................... 154
`
`Noah Sys v. Intuit,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Novatek, Inc. v. Sollami Co.,
`559 Fed. Appx. 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................