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
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`PINN, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: SA CV 19-01805-DOC-JDE
`
`ORDER ADOPTING TECHNICAL
`SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND
`RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
`CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION
`
`-1-
`
`PINN-2015 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Plaintiff Pinn, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Pinn”) has asserted United States Patents No. 9,807,491 (“the
`’941 Patent”), 10,455,066 (“the ’066 Patent”), and 10,609,198 (“the ’198 Patent”) against Defendant
`Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”). Pinn previously settled with Defendant Google LLC and
`Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The only remaining Defendant is Apple Inc. Plaintiff
`asserts Claims 1 and 9 of the ’491 Patent, Claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 21, 30, 34, 36, and 38 of the ’066
`Patent, and Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 21, 25, 27, and 29 of the ’198 Patent (Dkt. 299 at 1.) against Defendant.
`Before the Court is the dispute over the proper definitions of numerous contested terms in the patents at
`issue. On March 16, 2020, the Court appointed David Keyzer to serve as the Technical Special Master
`for the Court in this case (Dkt. 47, 64, 77).
`The parties submitted their respective Opening Claim Construction Briefs on April 28, 2020
`(Dkts. 102, 103). The parties submitted their respective Responsive Claim Construction Briefs on May
`15, 2020 (Dkts. 110, 111). Also before the Technical Special Master were the parties’ July 16, 2019
`Second Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 97) and Second Amended
`Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. 97, Ex. A). The parties had not agreed on any constructions.
`Pursuant to the Court’s March 26, 2020 Amended Order Appointing Technical Special Master
`(Dkt. 77) and Order Regarding Claim Construction Proceedings (Dkt. 78), the Technical Special
`Master, having reviewed numerous filings from the parties, as well as having conducted a full-day
`hearing on June 9, 2020, filed his Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on June 29, 2020 (Dkt. 159).
`Both parties filed timely objections to the R&R. Dkt. 172 (Pl.’s Objections); Dkt. 171 (Defs.’
`Objections). Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s Objections on July 31, 2020 (Dkt. 186).
`Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s Objections on July 31, 2020 (Dkt. 185). After conducting a de
`novo review including further argument on November 17, 2020, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
`Recommendation of the Technical Special Master as outlined below.
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`When reviewing the Technical Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, the Court
`reviews de novo all objections to a Special Master’s report and recommendation, including legal
`conclusions and findings of fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3), (4); Seaman v. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran &
`Arnold, LLP, Case No. SACV-11-0664-DOC (RNBx), 2014 WL12700973, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 30,
`
`-2-
`
`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
`
`
`
`PINN-2015 2
`
`

`

`2014). Accordingly, “[t]he court may ‘accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
`recommendations made by the [special master].’ The [court] may also receive further evidence or
`recommit the matter to the [special master] with instructions.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
`Commodore Bus. Machs., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
`636(b)(1)(C)).
`II.
`THE DISPUTED TERMS
`A. Adoptions of Report and Recommendation
`After conducting de novo review of the R&R, the Court adopts the following constructions as
`recommended by the Technical Special Master for all the reasons described in the R&R (as noted in the
`following chart, the Court does not construe certain terms because those terms appear in claims that
`Plaintiff no longer asserts (see Dkt. 299)):
`
`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
`
`-3-
`
`PINN-2015 3
`
`

`

`Term
`
`Adopted Construction
`
`A.(l) “wirelessly pairing”
`
`“establishing a tmsted relationship between two
`
`devices that allows them to communicate
`
`A.(2) “wireless pairing”
`
`wirelessly” (See R&R at 6—17.)
`
`
`
`A.(3) “wirelessly paired”
`
`B. “smartphone”
`
`“a trusted relationship is established between
`
`two devices that allows them to communicate
`
`wirelessly” (See R&R at 6—17.)
`
`“mobile device that can communicate on a
`
`cellular network (and can do so without needing
`
`to communicate through another device), that
`
`can perform many of the fimctions of a
`
`computer, and that can be held by han ” (See
`
` “in response to pressing of the user input button,
`
`
`R&R at 18—27.)
`
`C. “mobile application”
`
`D. “A method of operating the apparatus of
`
`claim 1, the method of comprising: initiating
`
`wireless pairing .
`
`.
`
`. in response to pressing of the
`
`user input button .
`
`.
`
`. turning off the wireless
`
`“a software application installed on a mobile
`
`computing device” (See R&R at 27—35.)
`
`(The Court does not construe this term because
`
`this term appears in a claim that Plaintiff no
`
`longer asserts (see Dkt. 299).)
`
`
`pairing. . .”
`
`E. “in response to pressing of the user input
`
`button, the at least one processor is configured to
`
`execute computer program instructions stored in
`
`the at least one memory to initiate processing for
`
`the wireless pairing with the smartphone such that
`
`the at least one processor is configured to execute
`
`computer program instructions stored in the at
`
`least one memory to initiate processing for the
`
`wireless pairing with the smartphone to enable
`
`
`the wireless earbud receives audio data originated
`the wireless earbud to receive and play audio data
`
`PINN-20154
`
`.4-
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`l7
`
`l8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PINN-2015 4
`
`

`

`
`
`from the smartphone and plays audio using the
`
`originated from the smartphone” (See R&R at
`
`
`audio data from the smartphone”
`40—49.)
`
`F. “information display”
`
`(The Court does not construe this term because
`
`this term appears in a claim that Plaintiff no
`
`
`
`
`longer asserts (see Dkt. 299).)
`
`G. “circuitry .
`
`.
`
`. configured to obtain
`
`characteristics of the wireless earbud and send the
`
`characteristics to the at least one processor”
`
`Construed to have its plain meaning. (See R&R at
`
`59—72.)
`
`
`
`
`
`H. “communication module configured to
`
`interface data communication with at least one of
`
`the smartphone and the wireless earbu ”
`
`I. “wherein the wireless earbud is not capable of
`
`wirelessly sending data to the mobile base
`
`station” (1"erm l7)/”wherein the wireless earbud
`
`is not capable of wirelessly sending data to the
`
`(The Court does not construe this term because
`
`this term appears in claims that Plaintiff no longer
`
`asserts (see Dkt. 299).)
`
`Construed to have their plain meaning. (See R&R
`
`at 83—95.)
`
`
`
`main body” (Term 18)
`
`III.
`
`DISPOSITION
`
`For the aforementioned reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Technical Special Master’s Report and
`
`Recommendation regarding claims construction.
`
`November 24, 2020
`DATED: November 24, 2020
`
`Wzfldrm
`
`DAVID O. CARTER
`
`UNTI'ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`PINN-2015 5
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`l7
`
`l8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PINN-2015 5
`
`