Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 66 PageID #: 1995
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC. and HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION and ZTE USA INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-RWS
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`ZTE USA INC.’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF IN RESPONSE
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 1/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 66 PageID #: 1996
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................................... v
`
`Table of Exhibits & Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ ix
`
`I.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Huawei’s Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ZTE’s Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`
`
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`General principles of claim construction ............................................................................ 1
`
`Means-plus-function limitations ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Indefiniteness .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Persons of ordinary skill in the art ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`The ’443 Patent ..................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“a detecting means for detecting whether a user associated medium at least
`approaches at least part of a housing of said apparatus” .................................................. 4
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`The ’139 Patent ..................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“characterizing quantities of the communication quality for each of the
`groups” (Claims 1 & 11) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`Indefinite: “a storage unit in which group information generated by
`classifying the plurality of base stations into groups” (Claim 11) .................................... 8
`
`VII.
`
` The ‘440 Patent ...................................................................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“still pictures encoded by a second encoding method, and second pictures
`corresponding to the still pictures and having a smaller number of pixels than
`the still pictures are recorded” (Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7) .....................................................11
`
`VIII.
`
` The ’760 Patent ...................................................................................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“first encoding method” (Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15) ...............................15
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`The ’292 Patent ...................................................................................................................................17
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“combining” / “combined” (Claims 1 & 2) .....................................................................17
`
`Means-plus-function limitations (Claim 1)........................................................................19
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– i –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 2/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 66 PageID #: 1997
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`Indefinite: “GPS reliability calculation means for calculating GPS
`positioning reliability based on the GPS-based position result” /
`“cellular reliability calculation means for calculating cellular
`positioning reliability based on the cellular-based position result”
`(Claim 1) ...................................................................................................................19
`
`Indefinite: “cellular position calculation means for calculating the
`mobile handset’s position from the received cellular signals and
`outputting a cellular-based position result” (Claim 1) .......................................22
`
`“GPS position calculation means for calculating the mobile handset’s
`position from the received GPS signals and outputting a GPS-based
`position result” (Claim 1) .......................................................................................23
`
`“GPS/cellular positioning results combining means for combining
`the GPS-based position result and the cellular-based position result
`with the GPS positioning reliability and the cellular positioning
`reliability” (Claim 1) ................................................................................................23
`
`“GPS receiver means for receiving GPS-oriented signals and
`generating received GPS signals” / “cellular receiver means for
`receiving cellular oriented signals and generating received cellular
`signals” (Claim 1) ....................................................................................................23
`
`X.
`
`
`
`The ’517 Patent ...................................................................................................................................24
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“waits a longer time until switching” .................................................................................24
`
`Indefinite: “selection switching determination unit for selecting one from
`said first and second physical interfaces to switch to a selected physical
`interface …. waits a longer time until switching of said physical interface
`when said movement determination unit determines the moving speed being
`faster” (Claim 1) ....................................................................................................................26
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`The ’901 Patent ...................................................................................................................................28
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“when any change occurs in the video signal inputted to the input portion” /
`“when the change of the video signal does not occur and when the
`illumination detected by the illumination sensor is above a predetermined
`value” (Claim 1) ....................................................................................................................28
`
`XII.
`
` The ’438 Patent ...................................................................................................................................30
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“input entered by a user” (Claim 1) ...................................................................................30
`
`XIII. The ’491 Patent ...................................................................................................................................32
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“controller means for detecting change in said method of compression and
`encoding, and for transferring the decoding program code corresponding to
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 3/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 66 PageID #: 1998
`
`the method of the compression and encoding after being changed, from said
`read-only memory to said first memory” ..........................................................................32
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“a demultiplexer for inputting one audio data sequence which is compressed
`and encoded, being selected from a plurality of audio data sequences which
`are multiplexed” ....................................................................................................................34
`
`XIV. The ’317 Patent ...................................................................................................................................34
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`“walking navigation” ............................................................................................................35
`
`“a relation of said direction and a direction from said present place to said
`destination” ............................................................................................................................35
`
`[a device connected to a server,] “said device connected to said server
`outputting said location information and said direction information and
`receiving retrieved information based on said outputted information at said
`server” ....................................................................................................................................36
`
`XV. The ’493 and ’729 Patents .................................................................................................................36
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“an image sensing device having an array of pixels arranged vertically and
`horizontally in a grid pattern” .............................................................................................37
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`This Is a Means-Plus-Function Claim Element ..................................................37
`
`The Appropriate Structure to perform the function of image sensing
`includes color filters arranged in vertical lines ....................................................38
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“an image instability detector” ............................................................................................39
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`This Is a Means-Plus-Function Claim Element ..................................................39
`
`“an amount of image-instability of the camera” ..............................................................40
`
`“to change a position of the second effective set of pixels according to the
`amount of image-instability detected by the image-instability detector, in
`order to correct the image-instability” ...............................................................................40
`
`“a display unit configured to display an image corresponding to the image
`signals formed by the signal processing unit” ..................................................................41
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`This Is a Means-Plus-Function Claim Element ..................................................41
`
`The Appropriate Structure to perform the function of displaying an
`image must include a display screen of a television system or other
`screen compatible with NTSC or PAL formats .................................................42
`
`XVI. The ’193 Patent ...................................................................................................................................43
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– iii –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 4/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 5 of 66 PageID #: 1999
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“A cellular telephone adapted to be used in a CDMA system, comprising” ...............44
`
`“variable amplitude amplifier” ............................................................................................45
`
`XVII. The ’794 Patent ...................................................................................................................................47
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“function device(s)” / “component device” / “component devices for
`performing different functions in the device”..................................................................47
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`These are Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements ..............................................47
`
`The ’794 Patent Specification Does Not Disclose Any Structure ...................51
`
`XVIII. The ’695 Patent ...................................................................................................................................51
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“a controller for receiving a method of compression and encoding from said
`demultiplexer, for detecting whether said method of compression and
`encoding changes to another method of compression and encoding or not,
`and if said method of compression and encoding changes, for downloading
`the decoding program code corresponding to said another method of
`compression and encoding, to said memory from outside of said memory” ..............52
`
`XIX.
`
` Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................53
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 5/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 6 of 66 PageID #: 2000
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................................... 17, 18
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................. 12, 13, 15, 24
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 29, 30, 31
`
`Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................................ 15
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................................ 24
`
`Baran v. Medical Device Techs, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................................... 36, 46
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001).................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................................... 2, 21, 22
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................................. 45
`
`Cellular Commc’ns Equip. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`2015 WL 10741012 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2015) ....................................................................................... 26
`
`Charles E. Hill & Assocs., Inc. v. Abt. Elecs., Inc.,
`2012 WL 72714 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2012) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co.,
`2000 WL 342872 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2000) ......................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2015 WL 8073722 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2015) ......................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Dossel,
`115 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................................. 27
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada),
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 6/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 7 of 66 PageID #: 2001
`
`E-Contact Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12136381 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2013) ............................................................................. 21, 22
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 1, 7, 31, 32
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 20, 21, 22, 27
`
`Furnace Brook LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`230 Fed. Appx. 984 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................... 20
`
`Gilead Sci., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc.,
`2016 WL 1690306 (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2016) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................... 12, 13, 15
`
`In re Hyatt,
`708 F.2d 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Image Processing Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`2017 WL 2672616 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017) ...................................................................................9, 10
`
`Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp.,
`483 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................................3, 34
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................................ 26
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................................ 13
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................................... 20, 27
`
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004).................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– vi –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 7/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 8 of 66 PageID #: 2002
`
`North American Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.,
`7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................................... 46
`
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................................ 20
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003).............................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 1, 12, 38, 42
`
`On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................................6, 19
`
`Otto Bock HealthCare LP v. %20Ossur HF,
`557 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................................... 23
`
`Peer Commc’ns Corp. v. Skype Techs. SA, Skype, Inc.,
`2008 WL 4831001 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2008) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................... 1, 35, 40
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`422 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Del. 2006) ........................................................................................................ 18
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................................5, 19
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998).............................................................................................................. 1, 6
`
`Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp.,
`656 F. App’x 531 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................... 23
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................. 47, 48, 49, 51
`
`Saint Lawrence Commc’ns LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`2016 WL 6275390 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016) ....................................................................................... 26
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`327 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D. Tex. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V.,
`358 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................................ 12
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– vii –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 8/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 9 of 66 PageID #: 2003
`
`Sw. EFuel Network, L.L.C. v. Transaction Tracking Techs., Inc.,
`2009 WL 3460265 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2009) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.,
`2013 WL 2177896 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2013) ......................................................................................... 2
`
`TracBeam, L.L.C. v. AT&T, Inc.,
`2013 WL 250532 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2013) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Transformer Co. v. Levinson,
`837 F.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................................................................................ 44
`
`Tronzo v. Bimet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................................ 35
`
`Trusted Knight Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`2015 WL 7307134 (D. Del. Nov. 19, 2015) ............................................................................... 9, 10, 11
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................................ 12
`
`UCB Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co.,
`837 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir.2016) ................................................................................................................. 44
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`2009 WL 1408520 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2009) .............................................................................. 6, 7, 25
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................................... 12, 15
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................................... 33, 41
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................................ 48
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(2) ................................................................................................................................. 4, 34, 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ...................................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– viii –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 9/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 10 of 66 PageID #: 2004
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS & ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Exhibit /
`Abbreviation
`Ex. 1
`
`
`
`Citation
` Byun Ex. 1 - page 1462 of the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary
`copyrighted 1997 (HUAWEI-HM_0047448-47450)
`
`Ex. 2
`
`Ex. 3
`
`Ex. 4
`
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`
`Ex. 7
`
`Ex. 8
`
`Ex. 9
`
`Ex. 10
`
`Ex. 11
`
`Ex. 12
`
`Ex. 13
`
` Byun Ex. 2 - page 1342 of the Merriam-Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
`Dictionary copyrighted 1990 (HUAWEI-HM_0047452-47453)
`
` Byun Ex. 3 - page 1345-46 of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth
`Edition copyrighted 1995 (HUAWEI-HM_0047445-47447)
`
` Byun Ex. 4 - pages 1-31 of Appendix 7 of Hitachi-Maxell’s Preliminary
`Infringement Contentions of U.S. Patent No. 6,856,760
`
` Byun Ex. 5 - October 25, 2008 Notice of Allowability in the File History of the
`U.S. Patent No. 7,509,139 (HM_HUAWEI0008947-08950)
`
` Byun Ex. 6 - page 32 of the Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary Ninth
`Edition copyrighted 2001 (HUAWEI-HM_0047480-47482)
`
` Byun Ex. 7 - page 42 of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fifth Edition
`copyrighted 2002 (HUAWEI-HM_0047454-47457)
`
` Byun Ex. 8 - pages 1-2 and pages 27-30 of the transcript of the September 27,
`2017 hearing on Huawei’s motion to dismiss
`
` Byun Ex. 9 - pages 56-57 of Appendix 2 of Hitachi-Maxell’s Preliminary
`Infringement Contentions of U.S. Patent No. 7,509,139 (Apr. 21, 2017)
`
` Byun Ex. 10 - page 377 from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language Third Edition copyrighted 1996 (HUAWEI-HM_0047436-47440)
`
` Byun Ex. 11 - January 19, 2007 Amendment and Remarks in the File History of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,767 (MAXELL_HU-ZTE0024845-24864)
`
` Byun Ex. 12 - September 22, 2004 Non-Final Rejection for Application No.
`10/094,980
`
` Byun Ex. 13 - December 22, 2004 Response and Amendment to Office Action
`for Application No. 10/094,980
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– ix –
`
`
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 10/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 11 of 66 PageID #: 2005
`
`Ex. 14
`
`Ex. 15
`
`Ex. 16
`
`Ex. 17
`
`Ex. 18
`
`Ex. 19
`
`Ex. 20
`
`Ex. 21
`
`Byun Ex. 14 - April 12, 2005 Notice of Allowability for Application No.
`10/094,980
`
` Byun Ex. 15 - December 29, 2003 Amendment and Remarks in the File History
`for U.S. Patent No. 6,856,760 (HM_HUAWEI0007935-07948)
`
` Byun Ex. 16 - pages 59-61 of the Appendix 5 to Hitachi Maxell’s Preliminary
`Infringement Contentions of U.S. Patent No. 7,203,517 (Apr. 21, 2017)
`
` Byun Ex. 17 - Tables of agreed-to and disputed terms and parties’ proposed
`constructions
`
` Byun Ex. 18 - January 2, 2002 Response to Office Action for Application No.
`09/436,502
`
` Byun Ex. 19 - Excerpt of the Application papers in the File History for U.S.
`Patent No. 5,396,443
`
` Byun Ex. 20 - May 6, 1994 Office Action in the File History for U.S. Patent No.
`5,396,443
`
` Byun Ex. 21 - August 8, 1994 Response to Office Action and Proposed
`Amendment to the Drawings in the File History for U.S. Patent No. 5,396,443
`
`Akl Decl.
`
` Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl, D.Sc. Regarding Claim Construction of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 7,509,139 and 6,628,292 (Oct. 23, 2017)
`
`Wells Decl.
`
` Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., M.B.A. Regarding Claim Construction
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,203,517 (Oct. 23, 2017)
`
`Wolfe Decl.
`
` Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,329,794
`
`Mansoorian
`Decl.
`
` Declaration of Dr. Barmak Mansoorian, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493 and U.S. Patent No. 8,736,729
`
`Mayer-Patel
`Decl.
`
` Declaration of Dr. Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,816,491 and U.S. Patent No. 8,098,695
`
`Andrews
`Decl.
`
`Ding Decl.
`
` Declaration of Mr. Scott Andrews Regarding Claim Construction of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,748,317
`
` Declaration of Dr. Zhi Ding, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,408,193
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– x –
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - Exhibit No. 1012 - 11/66
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 100 Filed 10/23/17 Page 12 of 66 PageID #: 2006
`
`I.
`
` Huawei’s Introduction
`
`Huawei’s constructions (see Ex. 17) should be adopted because they are the most natural
`
`meanings of the disputed terms and capture the fundamental features of the alleged inventions;
`
`Maxell’s constructions do not. Several of Maxell’s asserted claims are indefinite because the
`
`specification fails to disclose structure sufficient to perform the claimed functions.
`
` ZTE’s Introduction
`II.
`
`Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE” or “Defendant”) hereby submits its Responsive Claim
`
`Construction Brief regarding certain terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,396,443 (“the ’443 patent”),
`
`6,329,794 (“the ’794 patent”), 6,408,193 (“the ’193 patent”), 6,758,317 (“the ’317 patent”), 6,816,491
`
`(“the ’491 patent”), 8,098,695 (“the ’695 patent”), 8,339,493 (“the ’493 patent”), and 8,736,729 (“the
`
`’729 patent”).
`
` Legal Standard
`III.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`General principles of claim construction
`
`Claims terms should generally be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The specification “is always highly relevant” and often
`
`“dispositive” because “it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. (quotation
`
`marks and citation omitted). The “[o]rdinary meaning is not … determined in a vacuum”; “a word
`
`describing patented technology takes its definition from the context in which it was used by the
`
`inventor.” Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
`
`description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`If the parties have “a fundamental dispute” about “the scope of a claim term,” the Court has
`
`a “duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Claim Construction Brief in Response,
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`– 1 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Huawei v. Maxell - E