Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 132 Page ID #:4348
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx)
`LA CV14-02457 JAK (JEMx)
`LA CV14-02962 JAK (JEMx)
`LA CV14-02963 JAK (JEMx)
`LA CV14-03108 JAK (JEMx)
`LA CV14-03109 JAK (JEMx)
`
`LA CV14-03111 JAK (JEMx)
`LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`LA CV14-03114 JAK (JEMx)
`SA CV14-00491 JAK (JEMx)
`SA CV14-00497 JAK (JEMx)
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`Signal IP v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Nissan North America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Subaru of America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC
`Signal IP v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
`
`Signal IP v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.
`Signal IP v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.
`
`
`
`JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Present: The Honorable
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrea Keifer
`Deputy Clerk
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
`Not Present
`
`
`
`
`Not Reported
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`Not Present
`
`
`
`Proceedings:
`
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 
`
`II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 4 
`
`III.  LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Claim Construction .................................................................................................................. 5 
`B. 
`Means Plus Function Claim Limitations ................................................................................. 7 
`C. 
`Definiteness .............................................................................................................................. 7 
`
`IV.  ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`The ‘927 Patent ......................................................................................................................... 8 
`“In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target
`Term No. 1:  
`vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of improving the perceived
`zone of coverage response automotive radar comprising the steps of” (Claim 1) .............. 12 
`
`Term No. 2: 
`
`“Variable Sustain Time” (Claims 1 and 2) .................................................. 14 
`
`“Wherein the Zone of Coverage Appears to Increase According to the
`Term No. 3:  
`Variable Sustain Time” / “Improving the Perceived Zone of Coverage” (Claim 1) .......... 19 
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 132 Page ID #:4349
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`Term No. 4: 
`
`
`“A Threshold Time” (Claim 1) .................................................................... 23 
`
`B. 
`
`“Improving the Perceived Zone of Coverage” (Claim 1) ............................ 24 
`Term No. 5: 
`The ‘375 Patent ....................................................................................................................... 24 
`Term No. 6:  
`“Force Distribution” (Claim 1) ..................................................................... 29 
`
`Term No. 7: 
`
`“On the Passenger Seat” (Claim 1) ........................................................... 33 
`
`Term No. 8:  
`
`“Seat Area” (Claim 1) ................................................................................. 35 
`
`Term No. 9:  
`
`“Sensor Array / Array of Force Sensors” (Claim 1) .................................... 36 
`
`Term No. 10: 
`
`“Seat Area Threshold Force” (Claim 1) ...................................................... 39 
`
`C. 
`
`“Concentrated” (Claim 1) ........................................................................... 41 
`Term No. 11: 
`The ‘007 Patent ....................................................................................................................... 43 
`Term No. 12:  
`“Seat Sensors” (Claims 1, 17, 18 & 19) ..................................................... 48 
`
`Term No. 13: 
`
`“Lock Flag” / “Flag” (Claims 1, 17) ............................................................. 51 
`
`Term No. 14: 
`
`“For a Time” / “For a Given Time” (Claims 1 & 17) .................................... 53 
`
`Term No. 15: 
`
`“A Second Threshold” (Claim 20) .............................................................. 56 
`
`Term No. 16: 
`
`“Relative Weight Parameter” (Claims 1, 17, 20-22) ................................... 60 
`
`Term No. 17: 
`
`“Setting” / “Set a Lock Flag When . . .” (Claims 1, 17) ............................... 63 
`
`Term No. 18: 
`
`“A Level Indicative of an Empty Seat” (Claims 1, 17) ................................ 65 
`
`Term No. 19: 
`
`“Arrayed in an Interface Defined by the Bottom Surface” (Claim 19) ........ 68 
`
`“Means for Selectively Allowing Deployment According to the Outputs of
`Term No. 20: 
`Seat Sensors Responding to the Weight of an Occupant” (Claim 1)” ................................. 70 
`
`“Means for Inhibiting and Allowing Deployment . . .” (Claim 17) ................ 73 
`Term No. 21: 
`The ‘486 Patent ....................................................................................................................... 75 
`“Warning Distance Based upon the Current Steering Angle”/ “Desired
`Term No. 22: 
`Warning Distance” (Claims 21 & 28) ................................................................................... 79 
`The ‘601 Patent ....................................................................................................................... 85 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 132
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 132 Page ID #:4350
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`Term Nos. 23 & 25: 
`
`
`[Listed in Chart Below] ...................................................................... 88 
`
`“Threshold Torque Range Indicative of Conditions of Relatively Low
`Term No. 24: 
`Vehicle Torque Demand” (Claim 8) ..................................................................................... 93 
`
`Term No. 25: 
`
`[See Term No. 23 (above)] ........................................................................ 97 
`
`“Regions of Relatively High and Low Efficiency” / “Region of -Efficiency” /
`Term No. 26: 
`“Region of High Efficiency” / “Relatively High and Relatively Low Efficiency (Claims 15, 17)
`………………………………………………………………………………………………………97 
`
`“Mapping” / “Mapping the Respective Regions of Relatively High and Low
`Term No. 27: 
`Efficiency in an Efficiency Map for the Propulsion Unit” (Claims 15 & 17) ........................ 100 
`
`F. 
`
`“Efficiency Map” (Claims 15 & 17) ........................................................... 101 
`Term No. 28: 
`The ‘374 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 105 
`“All Having the Same Data Format but Distinctive Codes for Tire
`Term No. 29: 
`Transmitters and Vehicle Function Transmitters” (Claim 1) .............................................. 108 
`
`Term No. 30: 
`
`“A Switch Activated by a Vehicle User” (Claim 3) .................................... 111 
`
`Term No. 31: 
`
`“Sign Up Message” (Claim 3) .................................................................. 113 
`
`G. 
`
`“Each Tire” (Claim 3) ............................................................................... 116 
`Term No. 32: 
`The ‘775 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 117 
`Term No. 33: 
`“Message Rate” (Claim 6) ........................................................................ 120 
`
`Term No. 34: 
`
`“Message Rate Interval” (Claim 6) ........................................................... 122 
`
`Term No. 35: 
`
`“Message” (Claim 6) ................................................................................ 127 
`
`Term No. 36: 
`
`“Complete Message” / “Fragment of a Complete Message” (Claim 6) .... 128 
`
`IV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 132 
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 3 of 132
`
`
`
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 132 Page ID #:4351
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`In April, 2014, Plaintiff Signal IP (“Plaintiff”) brought separate actions against Defendants Mitsubishi
`Motors North America, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”), Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”), BMW of North
`America, LLC (“BMW”), Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (“Porsche”), American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`and Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (collectively, “Honda”), Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”),
`Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (“Mercedes”), Volkswagen Group of America, Audi of America, LLC, and
`Bentley Motors, Inc. (collectively “VW/Bentley”), Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Jaguar”),
`Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”), and Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Kia”) (collectively, “Defendants”),
`alleging infringement as to one or more of seven U.S. Patents (the “Patents in Suit”).1
`
`The parties filed their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (“Joint Statement”) on
`January 30, 2015, Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. LA CV14-2454, Dkt. 46, and their
`Amended Joint Claim Construction Brief (“Joint Brief”) and Joint Evidentiary Appendix (“JA”) on March
`11, 2015, Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. LA CV14-2454, Dkts. 52-53.2 The parties
`disputed the construction of 36 terms. Id. The week before the hearing, the parties came to agreement
`on one of those terms. This left 35 for construction. Notice of Agreed Construction as to Claim Term
`Threshold Time, Dkt. 55.
`
` Markman hearing was held on March 31, 2015, and the matter was taken under submission. Minutes
`of Markman Hearing, Dkt. 57. The disputed terms are construed, or otherwise addressed, in this Order.
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`
`
`The Patents in Suit are: U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (“the ‘927 Patent”), “Method of Improving Zone of
`Coverage Response of Automotive Radar”; U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ‘375 Patent”), “Method of
`Inhibiting or Allowing Airbag Deployment”; U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (“the ‘007 Patent”), “Occupant
`Detection Method and System for Air Bag System”; U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486 (“the ‘486 Patent”),
`“Technique for Limiting the Range of an Object Sensing System in a Vehicle”; U.S. Patent No. 6,775,
`601 (“the ‘601 Patent”), “Method and Control System for Controlling Propulsion in a Hybrid Vehicle”;
`U.S. Patent No. 5,463,374 (“the ‘374 Patent”), “Method and Apparatus for Tire Pressure Monitoring and
`for Shared Keyless Entry Control”; and U.S. Patent No. 5,954,775 (“the ‘775 Patent”), “Dual-rate
`Communication Protocol.” Joint Report, Dkt.35 at 3-4.
`
`The following table shows the patents that are asserted against each Defendant.
`
`
` A
`
`
`1 Several additional defendants were named in cases that have been dismissed or transferred from this District.
`
` Unless otherwise noted, all references to a docket number are to Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`No. LA CV 14-2454.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 4 of 132
`
` 2
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 132 Page ID #:4352
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`
`Porsche
`VW
`
`BMW
`
`x
`x
`x
`x
`x
`x
`
`
`x
`x
`x
`x
`x
`x
`
`
`x
`x
`
`
`x
`x
`
`
`Mercedes
`
`x
`x
`x
`
`x
`x
`
`
`Jaguar
`
`Subaru
`
`Nissan
`
`x
`x
`
`x
`x
`x
`x
`
`x
`x
`
`
`x
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`Mitsubishi
`
`
`x
`
`x
`x
`
`x
`
`Mazda
`
`Kia
`
`Honda
`
`x
`x
`
`x
`x
`x
`
`
`x
`x
`
`x
`x
`x
`
`
`
`x
`
`x
`x
`x
`x
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`‘601 Patent
`‘486 Patent
`‘775 Patent
`‘375 Patent
`‘007 Patent
`‘927 Patent
`‘374 Patent
`
`III.
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`Claim construction is the process of determining the meaning and scope of patent claims. Markman v.
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). It
`is a matter that is addressed by the district court; in general, the findings are reviewed de novo on
`appeal, although underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
`v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 840-41 (2015).
`
`“[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “In some cases, the ordinary
`meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even
`to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “In such circumstances, general
`purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Id. “In many cases that give rise to litigation, however,
`determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim requires examination of terms that have a
`particular meaning in a field of art.” Id.
`
`“Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not
`immediately apparent, and because patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to
`‘those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood
`disputed claim language to mean.’” Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “Those sources include ‘the words of the claims
`themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence
`concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.’” Id.
`
`Claim construction “begins and ends” with the words of the claims. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’
`per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Quite apart from the written description and the
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 5 of 132
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 6 of 132 Page ID #:4353
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`prosecution history, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
`claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can
`be highly instructive.” Id. In addition to the words of the claim(s) being construed, “[o]ther claims of the
`patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to
`the meaning of a claim term. Because claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the
`patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other
`claims.” Id. “Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of
`particular claim terms.” Id. “For example, the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
`limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent
`claim.” Id. at 1314-15. However, “[c]laim differentiation is a guide, not a rigid rule.” Laitram Corp. v.
`Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Autogiro Co. of America v. United States,
`384 F.2d 391, 404 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“If a claim will bear only one interpretation, similarity will have to be
`tolerated.”).
`
`“[C]laims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part.”
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
`“[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
`particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`term.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`“[T]he specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs
`from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citations omitted). “In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional
`disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has
`dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is
`regarded as dispositive.” Id. (citations omitted).
`
`Notwithstanding the importance of a specification, limitations in the specification must not be read into
`the claims absent lexicography or disclaimer/disavowal. The Federal Circuit has “expressly rejected the
`contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be
`construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Id. at 1323. Conversely, “an interpretation [which
`excludes a preferred embodiment] is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive
`evidentiary support.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
`
`The prosecution history of a patent is also relevant intrinsic evidence. Although “the prosecution history
`represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of
`that negotiation” and for this reason “often lacks the clarity of the specification,” the prosecution history
`can nonetheless “often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor
`understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution,
`making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations
`omitted).
`
`“Although [the Federal Circuit has] emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 6 of 132
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 7 of 132 Page ID #:4354
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`construction, [it has] also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists of all
`evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
`dictionaries, and learned treatises.’” Id. (citations omitted). The use of “technical words or phrases not
`commonly understood” may give rise to a factual dispute, the determination of which will precede the
`ultimate construction. Teva, 135 S.Ct. at 841, 849 (2015).
`
`
`B.
`
`Means Plus Function Claim Limitations
`
` A
`
` claim limitation may be phrased as “a means or step for performing a specified function without the
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof.” Such limitations “shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35
`U.S.C. § 112(f). This “means plus function” interpretation applies “only to purely functional limitations
`that do not provide the structure that performs the recited function.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1311. “In
`construing a means plus function claim, the district court must first determine the claimed function and
`then identify the corresponding structure in the written description of the patent that performs that
`function.” Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A district court
`should “construe the meaning of the words used to describe the claimed function, using ordinary
`principles of claim construction.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1319
`(Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`The patent monopoly is a property right, and “like any property right, its boundaries should be clear.”
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014) (quoting Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu
`Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 730 (2002)). The requirement that the claims “particularly
`point out and distinctly claim” the boundaries of the invention has existed since the Patent Act of 1870.
`Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2125. The Patent Act of 1952, which is applicable to the patents at issue in this
`case that preceded the America Invents Act, requires that the specification conclude with “one or more
`claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as
`his invention.” Id. (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2006)).
`
`In recent decisions that preceded Nautilus, courts held that claims failed the definiteness requirement
`only when they were “not amenable to construction” or “insolubly ambiguous.” See Datamize, LLC v.
`Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, Nautilus overturned that
`standard, holding instead that § 112, ¶ 2 requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the
`specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention
`with reasonable certainty.” 134 S. Ct. at 2129. Nautilus emphasized that a patent must be precise
`enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby “appris[ing] the public of what is still open to
`them,” while recognizing that absolute precision is unobtainable. Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)).
`
`
`
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 7 of 132
`
`C.
`
`Definiteness
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 8 of 132 Page ID #:4355
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`IV.
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ‘927 Patent3
`
`
`The ‘927 Patent was issued on February 3, 1998 to assignee Delco Electronics Corporation (“Delco”). It
`discloses an improved method for using side detection radar to warn a driver about objects in the blind
`spot of a vehicle. ‘927 Patent at Abstract. The ‘927 Patent contains 12 claims, three of which Plaintiff
`asserts in these cases. Id.; Joint Rep., Dkt. 27 at 4. The Parties dispute the construction of five terms,
`two of which Defendants allege are indefinite.
`
`Generally, vehicles that use radar detection systems do so to identify nearby obstacles, or “targets.”
`‘927 Patent at 1:13-4. Such systems analyze the relative speeds of the host and target and decide
`whether to “report” a target. Id. at 1:35-39. Figure 1, which is reproduced below, shows a vehicle with
`side detection radar antennae behind the side view mirror. The antennae are part of a side detection
`system. Id. at 2:66-3:2. The side detection system is made up of the antennae, a signal processor, a
`transceiver and a microprocessor that receives and processes data. Id. at 3:14-24. Further, the ‘927
`Patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 5,530,447, which discloses a method and system in
`which the microprocessor computes host vehicle speed to determine whether an object is a hazard. Id.
`at 3:34-38.
`
`
`Side view mirror
`
`Side detection
`system
`
`Side detection
`radar antennae
`
`
`
`Figure 1
`
`
`The system disclosed in the ‘927 Patent improves upon previous ones by avoiding signal dropout and
`improving the zone of coverage that is perceived by the driver. Id. at 2:9-35. The ‘927 Patent addresses
`these two issues with a single approach. Specifically, it sustains a signal for a variable time based on
`the vehicle speed. This increased signal length both covers up dropouts in the radar system and makes
`it appear that the radar system continues to sense a target even after that target has passed out of
`radar range. Id. at 2:25-35.
`
`Figures 3a through 3d of the ‘927 Patent illustrate the dropout problem and the manner in which a
`sustained alert masks it. When a radar signal reflects off of a target vehicle’s wheel wells, it creates
`dips in the return signal field strength. This results in dropouts in the raw alert signal, i.e. any signal
`received without further processing. By applying sustained alert processing, such drop-offs are not
`present in the signal presented to the driver. Id. at 3:52-4:7.
`
`3 The ‘927 Patent is provided as Exhibit B, JA-0003-09.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 8 of 132
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 9 of 132 Page ID #:4356
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`By adding “a variable sustain time . . . to each alert signal which exceeds a threshold value” this same
`gap-filling method also “extend[s] the perceived zone of coverage.” Id. at Abstract. Figure 4 of the ‘927
`patent, which is reproduced below, shows the actual radar zone of coverage and the increased
`perceived zone that results from the variable sustain time.
`
`
`
`
`
`For target vehicle 52 travelling slower than the host vehicle, the radar “covers a zone 54 to provide a
`raw alert signal when the vehicle 52 is still in that zone.” Id. at 4:11-12. By sustaining the alert signal, “a
`zone of extension 56 is created to effectively increase the zone of coverage.” Id. at 4:13-14. Similarly,
`for target vehicle 60 travelling faster than the host vehicle, the “zone 62 actually monitored by radar is
`supplemented by a zone extension 64 due to the sustain period 48.” Id. at 4:18-19.
`
`
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 9 of 132
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 10 of 132 Page ID
` #:4357
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`A signal sustaining algorithm determines how long to maintain an alert signal. Id. at 4:22-23. ‘927
`Patent Figure 5 (below) depicts a flow chart of the alert signal sustaining algorithm. Id.
`
`
`
`
`The alert device determines three variables: minimum alert time threshold “THRESHOLD,” a function of
`vehicle speed 78; minimum sustain time delay “HOLD,” a function of speed 80; and variable minimum
`sustain time “SUSTIME,” a function of relative vehicle speed 82. Id. at 4:35-41.
`
`If an alert is active for longer than the THRESHOLD time, the alert is maintained until the variable
`sustain time (SUSTIME) is reached; the alert then turns off. Id. at 4:41-44. If the alerts are active for
`less than the THRESHOLD time, the alert turn-off is delayed for the HOLD time. Id. at 4:44-46.
`
`
`
`
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 10 of 132
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 11 of 132 Page ID
` #:4358
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`Suggested THRESHOLD, HOLD, and SUSTIME values vary according to vehicle speed. Id. at 4:37-42.
`Ideal THRESHOLD times are in the range of 160-300 milliseconds, decreasing stepwise as a function
`of speed. Id. at 4:53-56. This sustains the alert signal longer at higher speeds, when there is less
`probability of a false alarm. Id. at 4:53-61. HOLD values increase as a function of speed, in the 0-200
`millisecond range. Id. at 4:61-64. Holding the signal for longer at higher speeds helps to mask flickers
`due to multiple reflections or weak signals from the front or rear of a target vehicle. Id. at 4:64-67.
`Suggested variable SUSTIME values decrease stepwise from 2.5-0.6 seconds as a function of relative
`vehicle speed, as shown in Figure 7 of the ‘927 Patent, which is reproduced below. Id. at 5:1-4. These
`values should extend the perceived zone of coverage by about 10 feet beyond what would occur if a
`sustain time were not used. Id. at 5:5-6.
`
`
`
`
`
`The asserted ‘927 Patent claims in which the disputed terms occur are reproduced below, with the
`disputed terms in bold:
`
`1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target vehicle in a blind
`
`spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of improving the perceived zone of
`
`coverage response of automotive radar comprising the steps of:
`
`determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;
`selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle speed;
`
`
`detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command;
`
`activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;
`
`at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active
`for a threshold time; and
`
`
`if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for
`the variable sustain time, wherein the zone of coverage appears to
`
`
`
`increase according to the variable sustain time.
`
`
`2. The invention as defined in claim 1 wherein the variable sustain time is an inverse function of the
`relative vehicle speed.
`
`
`
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 11 of 132
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 12 of 132 Page ID
` #:4359
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date
`
`
`April 17, 2015
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- AND RELATED CASES
`
`Term No. 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target
`vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of improving
`the perceived zone of coverage response automotive radar comprising
`the steps of” (Claim 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`To the extent a construction is
`necessary, Plaintiff proposes that
`the preamble is limiting.
`
`Court’s Construction
`The preamble is limiting, and
`limit