UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUTOMATED STORAGE
`AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS, ROBOTS,
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-1228
`
`ORDER NO. 33:
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSTRUING TERMS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE
`PATENTS AT ISSUE
`
`(July 22, 2021)
`
`This order addresses the construction of disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,083,525 (“the ’525 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10, 494,239 (“the ’239 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,696,478 (“the ’478 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,294,025 (“the ’025 patent”), and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,474,140 (“the ’140 patent”).
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`In this investigation, Complainants AutoStore Technology AS, AutoStore AS, and
`
`AutoStore System Inc. (collectively, “AutoStore”) are asserting the ’525 patent, ’239 patent,
`
`’478 patent, ’025 patent, and ’140 patent against Respondents Ocado Group plc, Ocado Solutions
`
`Ltd., Ocado Solutions USA Inc., Ocado Innovation Ltd., Ocado Operating Ltd., Ocado Central
`
`Services Ltd., and Tharsus Group Ltd. (collectively, “Ocado”).1 See Notice of Investigation at
`
`1 Complainants also asserted the patents against Respondent Printed Motor Works Ltd. (“Printed
`Motor Works”). On June 2, 2021, Printed Motor Works was terminated from this investigation.
`Order No. 19 (June 2, 2021), non-review Comm’n Notice (June 22, 2021).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 1 of 74
`
`

`

`1-2 (Nov. 20, 2020). Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule (Order No. 4, Dec. 4, 2020), the
`
`parties filed opening claim construction briefs on February 25, 20212 and rebuttal claim
`
`construction briefs on March 10, 2021.3 Pursuant to Order No. 8 (March 19, 2021), the
`
`Markman hearing that was previously scheduled in this investigation was suspended. On April
`
`1, 2021, the parties filed reply claim construction briefs.4, 5
`
`On June 22, 2021, Respondents filed (1228-021) a motion for leave to file a supplemental
`
`claim construction brief. Respondents seek leave to file the supplemental brief to present
`
`“additional evidence that is material to resolution of the parties’ claim construction disputes.”
`
`Mot. at 1. The “additional evidence” in question is the deposition testimony of Christian Abel,
`
`AutoStore’s submissions to the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and EPO decisions concerning
`
`counterpart applications, and the deposition testimony and witness statements of Respondents’
`
`experts, Dr. Brian Pfeifer and Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea. Mot. at 2. Respondents argue that this
`
`evidence is relevant to the construction of the terms “[A/a] plurality of [rolling members/wheels]
`
`attached to the vehicle body” and “vehicle body” from the ’525 patent, ’239 patent, and 478
`
`2 Complainants’ opening claim construction brief is referenced herein as “CIB.” Respondents’
`opening claim construction brief is referenced herein as “RIB.”
`
`3 Complainant’s rebuttal claim construction brief is referenced herein as “CRB.” Respondents’
`rebuttal claim construction brief is referenced herein as “RRB.”
`
`4 Complainant’s reply claim construction brief is referenced herein as “CReply.” Respondents’
`reply claim construction brief is referenced herein as “RReply.”
`
`5 On April 1, 2021, the parties filed a document titled a “Joint Technology Tutorial” consisting of
`two competing tutorials: “Complainants’ Technology Tutorial” and “Respondents’ Technology
`Tutorial.” Order No. 8 required the parties to “file a joint technology tutorial.” The parties did
`not file a joint technology tutorial; they filed separate tutorials. Because the parties’ tutorials do
`not comply with Order No. 8, they were not reviewed by the undersigned.
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 2 of 74
`
`

`

`patent. For the reasons set forth below, Respondents’ motion for leave to file a supplemental
`
`claim construction brief is untimely.
`
`Mr. Abel, the prosecuting attorney for the ’525 patent, ’239 patent, and ’478 patent, was
`
`deposed on April 30, 2021. Mot. at 1. Respondents filed their motion for leave 53 days after
`
`Mr. Abel’s deposition. A similar delay occurred with respect to AutoStore’s submissions to the
`
`EPO cited by Respondents in their supplemental claim construction brief. These submissions
`
`were made on April 22, 2021 and April 30, 2021. Respondents’ Suppl. Br. Ex. 45; Respondents’
`
`Suppl. Br. Ex. 46. Not acknowledging the delay, Respondents offer no explanation that would
`
`justify their failure to seek leave to file a supplemental brief promptly after Mr. Abel’s deposition
`
`or after AutoStore’s submissions to the EPO. As of the filing date of Respondents’ motion, the
`
`sections of the Markman brief relating to the ’525 patent, ’239 patent, and ’478 patent had
`
`already been completed. If Respondents promptly sought leave to file a supplemental claim
`
`construction brief, Mr. Abel’s deposition testimony and AutoStore’s submissions to the EPO
`
`could have been considered while those sections were being drafted, not after.
`
`The other evidence cited in Respondents’ supplemental Markman brief could have been
`
`raised in Respondents’ initial Markman brief. Respondents cite decisions by the EPO relating to
`
`European patent applications EP3372533 (“EP/533”) and EP3372534 (“EP/534”), which are
`
`counterparts to the ’525 patent, ’239 patent, and ’478 patent. Respondents’ Suppl. Br. at 5-8. In
`
`these decisions, the EPO found that the placement of one set of “vehicle rolling means” within
`
`the vehicle body is an “essential feature” under European patent law. Id. at 5-6. The decisions,
`
`however, had been issued before the institution of this investigation. Respondents’ Suppl. Br.
`
`Ex. 42 (relating to EP/533 and issued on July 15, 2020); Respondents’ Suppl. Br. Ex. 43 (relating
`
`to EP/534 and issued on July 15, 2020); Respondents’ Suppl. Br. Ex. 44 (relating to EP/962 and
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 3 of 74
`
`

`

`issued on March 13, 2020). Therefore, the relevancy and significance of the decisions could
`
`have been raised in Respondents’ initial claim construction brief.
`
`With respect to the deposition testimony and witness statements of Respondents’ experts,
`
`although this testimony was elicited and presented only after the parties submitted their reply
`
`briefs, Respondents had the opportunity to submit declarations from their experts with their
`
`opening, rebuttal, and reply claim construction briefs. Unlike Complainants, Respondents did
`
`not avail themselves of this opportunity.
`
`In their supplemental Markman brief, Respondents cite a June 22, 2021 oral decision by
`
`the Opposition Division of the EPO revoking European patent EP2962962 (“EP/962”), a
`
`counterpart to the ’525 patent, ’239 patent, and ’478 patent. In the June 22, 2021 proceedings,
`
`the Opposition Division “orally affirmed” its March 13, 2020 preliminary opinion. Oliver Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 2-5.6 Although the June 22, 2021 oral decision was made on the day that Respondents filed
`
`their motion for leave, the preliminary written decision affirmed by the Opposition Division was
`
`issued before the institution of this investigation. Respondents did not address the preliminary
`
`written decision in their initial, rebuttal, or reply briefs.
`
`Moreover, by itself, the Opposition Board’s June 22, 2021 decision is of little value in
`
`determining the meaning of the disputed claim terms. As explained by Are Stenvik, a
`
`Norwegian attorney representing AutoStore,
`
`As a matter of EPO procedure, whilst the Opposition Division
`gives its overall decision during the Oral Proceedings, it does not
`give detailed reasoning as to why it has reached that view. As a
`result, the parties will know the outcome, but not the actual
`
`6 In support of their motion for leave, Respondents did not submit a transcript from the June 22,
`2021 proceedings. Instead, Respondents submitted a three-page declaration from Thomas
`Oliver, a British solicitor representing Respondent Ocado Innovation Ltd. and who had attended
`the proceedings. Id. at ¶ 1.
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 4 of 74
`
`

`

`reasoning for the decision until written decision is issued. The
`written decision forms the sole basis and formal record of the
`reasons of the Opposition Division. Any oral comments from the
`Opposition Division are not part of the outcome or reasoning of the
`Division unless specifically set out in or referred to in the written
`decision.
`
`Stevnik Decl. at ¶ 17 (citations omitted). Thus, the Opposition Division’s June 22, 2021 decision
`
`cannot be evaluated until the Opposition Division issues its written decision. The Opposition
`
`Division is not expected to issue a written decision for several months. Oliver Decl at ¶¶ 4, 5, 7.
`
`Further, although described as a “final decision,” the Opposition Division’s decision can be
`
`appealed to the EPO Boards of Appeal. Id. at ¶ 21; see also Oliver Decl at ¶ 7.
`
`For lack of good cause, Respondents’ motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`“The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim
`
`language[] in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.”
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (alterations in original)
`
`(quoting Scripps Clinic v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[O]nly those
`
`[claim] terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999).
`
`Claim construction focuses mainly on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See generally Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1313-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The 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 art” as of the date that the patent application was filed. Id. at 1312-13
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 5 of 74
`
`

`

`(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) (citations
`
`omitted). A 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.” Id. 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.” Id. at
`
`1314. Often, 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. “[T]he 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., 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.
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova, 381 F.3d. at
`
`1115)). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
`
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id. at
`
`1314. For example, “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly
`
`instructive,” and “[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.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`“[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, 90 F.3d at 1582). “The longstanding difficulty is the contrasting nature
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 6 of 74
`
`

`

`of the axioms that (a) a claim must be read in view of the specification and (b) a court may not
`
`read a limitation into a claim from the specification.” Innova, 381 F.3d at 1117.
`
`
`
`In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be
`
`examined if in evidence. “The prosecution history . . . consists of the complete record of the
`
`proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the
`
`inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “[T]he prosecution history can
`
`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.” Id.
`
`If the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic evidence
`
`may be considered. Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and the
`
`prosecution history, including inventor and expert testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.”
`
`Id. at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed “as less reliable than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. at 1318. “The court may
`
`receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant technology, but
`
`the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds
`
`with the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192
`
`F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`B. Indefiniteness
`
`
`
`“The Patent Act requires that a patent specification ‘conclude with one or more
`
`claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
`
`regards as [the] invention.’” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014)
`
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2). “[T]he second paragraph of § 112 contains two requirements:
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 7 of 74
`
`

`

`first, [the claim] must set forth what the applicant regards as his invention, and second, it must do
`
`so with sufficient particularity and distinctness, i.e., the claim must be sufficiently definite.”
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). A claim does not satisfy the second
`
`requirement and is thereby indefinite “if read in light of the specification delineating the patent,
`
`and the prosecution history, [it] fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the
`
`art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, 534 U.S. at 901. Indefiniteness is a question of
`
`law, subject to a determination of underlying facts. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem.
`
`Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The party challenging the validity of a claim
`
`bears the burden of establishing indefiniteness. Id.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`For the asserted patents, Respondents propose that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and at least two to three
`
`years’ experience working in the field of the design of robotic vehicles for material handling
`
`systems.” RIB at 21-22. In their briefs, Complainants do not address the appropriate level of
`
`ordinary skill. Accordingly, the undersigned adopts Respondents’ uncontested definition of the
`
`level of ordinary skill. For the asserted patents, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and at least two to three years’
`
`experience working in the field of the design of robotic vehicles for material handling systems.
`
`IV. THE ’525 PATENT, ’239 PATENT, AND ’478 PATENT
`
`The ’239 patent and ’478 patent are continuations of the ’525 patent and the three patents
`
`share a common specification. The ’525 patent is titled “Robot for Transporting Storage Bins”
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 8 of 74
`
`

`

`and names inventor Ingvar Hongaland. ’525 patent, cover.7 The patent issued from an
`
`application filed on November 21, 2017. Id. Through a chain of continuation applications, the
`
`’525 patent claims priority to an application filed on December 5, 2013. Id. at cover-p. 2. The
`
`’525 patent also claims priority to a Norwegian application filed on December 10, 2012. Id. at
`
`cover.
`
`The ’239 patent is titled “Automated Storage System and Robot for Transporting Storage
`
`Bins.” ’239 patent, cover.8 The ’239 patent is a continuation of the ’525 patent and issued from
`
`an application filed on September 6, 2018. The ’478 patent is titled “Automated Storage
`
`System.” ’478 patent, cover.9 The ’478 patent is a continuation of the ’239 patent and issued
`
`from an application filed on October 1, 2019. Id. Both the ’239 patent and the ’478 patent name
`
`inventor Ingvar Hongaland. Id.; ’239 patent, cover.
`
`The ’525, ’239, and ’478 patents collectively are referenced herein as the ’525 patent
`
`family.
`
`A. Specification
`
`The specification of the ’525 patent family describes a storage system and a “remotely
`
`operated vehicle for picking up storage bins from [the] storage system.” ’525 patent at 1:18-
`
`22.10 The body of the remotely operated vehicle, which the specification also refers to as a
`
`robot, has a downward facing cavity 7.
`
`7 The ’525 patent is attached as Exhibit 4 to Complainant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`and as Exhibit 1 to Respondents’ Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`8 The ’239 patent is attached as Exhibit 5 to Complainant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`9 The ’478 patent is attached as Exhibit 6 to Complainant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`10 The ’525 patent, ’239 patent, and ’478 patent share a common specification. For brevity,
`citations are to the ’525 patent specification only.
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 9 of 74
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
` °525 patent, Fig. 3
`
`The cavity is large enough to contain the largest storage bin intendedto be picked up by the
`
`robot, as well as the components of the “vehicle lifting device,” whichlifts storage bins into the
`
`cavity. Jd. at 4:64-67. In addition to the cavity, the robot has two sets of wheels. In the Figure 3
`
`embodiment, one set of wheels is located on the outside of the robot’s body andis oriented to
`
`allow the robot to travel along the y-axis. The second set of wheels is located in the cavity and is
`
`oriented to allow the robotto travel along the x-axis.
`
`The disclosed robotis intended to be used in conjunction with a three-dimensional
`
`storage structure 15, formed from vertical pillars and a grid of integrated supporting rails 13. Jd.
`
`at 5:14-23.
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 10 of 74
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 10 of 74
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
` °525 patent, Fig. 6
`
`The pillars are spaced so that each “rectangular arrangement|] of four adjacentpillars .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`constitute[s] a storage column 8”for bins. °525 patent, 5:14-23. The supporting rails form a
`
`“two dimensional matrix of rectangular meshes” on top of the storage structure. Jd. at 5:26-37.
`
`The matrix of supporting rails constitutes “vehicle support 14.” Jd. at 5:14-17.
`
`While the “cross sectional area of most of these meshes coincide with the cross sectional
`
`area of each storage columns 8,” the cross-sectional areas of the “meshesat the border area 17,18
`
`of the vehicle support 14 (at both sides in direction Y)” are smaller. Jd. at 5:26-37. Preferably,
`
`the border meshes 17, 18 extend so that a remotely operated vehicle’s cavity can be positioned
`
`over a storage column adjacent to the border mesh. Jd. at 5:32-37.
`
`ll
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 11 of 74
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 11 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`aal
`
`11
`
`ellett
`Syl
`2
`> =S SSSSS
`tl
`
`a
`Wg
`ba
`
`15%
`
`a
`
`°525 patent, Fig. 8
`
`Oncethe vehicle is positioned over a storage column, the vehicle picks up a storage bin
`
`by lowering the vehicle lifting device 9 from the cavity. Jd. at 5:50-55. Theretrieved storage
`
`bin is stored in the vehicle’s cavity. Jd. With its two sets of wheels oriented perpendicular to
`
`each other the vehicle can travel along the matrix’s x-axis and its y-axis. See, e.g., id., Fig. 9.
`
`B. Asserted claims
`
`1. The 525 patent
`
`Complainants assert claims 1-6 of the ’525 patent. Notice of Investigation at 1-2 (Nov.
`
`20, 2020).
`
`1. A robot vehicle for transporting storage bins in a bin storage system,
`comprising
`
`a. A vehicle body,
`
`b. A plurality of rolling members attached to the vehicle body,
`arranged for traveling inafirst and second directions along a plurality
`ofrolling tracks of the bin storage system, said bin storage system
`being of the type comprising:
`
`1. A three-dimensional storage structure comprising a plurality of
`pillars which are positioned with internal distances and in a
`rectangular arrangement, wherein the rectangular arrangement of
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 12 of 74
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 12 of 74
`
`

`

`the pillars define storage columns for the storage of a plurality of
`vertically-stacked storage bins,
`
`ii. supporting rails arranged in a two-dimensional matrix on top of
`the pillars, said supporting rails defining rolling tracks arranged in
`a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first
`direction, the supporting rails further defining openings for the
`storage columns,
`
`c. A cavity arranged internally within the vehicle body arranged to
`receive a storage bin from a storage column.
`
`2. A robot vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the cavity comprises a
`downwardly facing opening of essentially the same width and length
`as the openings for the storage columns.
`
`3. A robot vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the vehicle body has a
`width and length such that a single robot vehicle essentially covers a
`single opening while retrieving a storage bin, whereby a second robot
`vehicle can traverse an adjacent column unhindered by a first robot
`vehicle.
`
`4. A robot vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the rolling members are
`wheels.
`
`5. A robot vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the wheels are arranged
`as a first set movable along the rolling tracks in the first direction, and
`a second set movable along the rolling tracks in the second direction.
`
`6. A robot vehicle according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the robot vehicles
`are remotely operated and further comprise sensors for determining the
`position of the robot vehicles within the storage system while in use.
`
`2. The ’239 patent
`
`Complainants assert claims 1, 2, and 5-15 of the ’239 patent. Notice of Investigation at
`
`1-2 (Nov. 20, 2020).
`
`1. An automated storage system, comprising
`
`a. a three-dimensional storage structure, comprising
`
`i. a plurality of pillars which are positioned with internal distances
`and in a rectangular arrangement, wherein the rectangular
`arrangement of the pillars define storage columns for the storage of
`a plurality of vertically-stacked storage bins,
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 13 of 74
`
`

`

`ii. supporting rails arranged in a two-dimensional matrix on top of
`the pillars, said supporting rails defining rolling tracks arranged in
`a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first
`direction, the supporting rails further defining openings for the
`storage columns,
`
`b. a plurality of remotely controlled robot vehicles movable along the
`support rails, said robot vehicles comprising
`
`i. a vehicle body,
`
` ii. a cavity arranged internally within the vehicle body arranged to
`receive a storage bin from a storage column, iii. a plurality of
`wheels attached to the vehicle body, arranged for traveling along
`the rolling tracks in the first and second directions, iv. a lifting
`device arranged to lift a storage bin into the cavity, whereby the
`robot vehicle can move along the top of the storage structure to
`positions immediately above a storage column and lift bins into the
`internally arranged cavity for further transport along the top of the
`storage structure.
`
`2. An automated storage system according to claim 1, wherein robot
`vehicle comprises a rectangular vehicle body.
`
`5. An automated storage system according to claim 1, wherein the cavity
`comprises a downwardly facing opening of essentially the same width
`and length as the openings for the storage columns.
`
`6. An automated storage system according to claim 5, wherein the vehicle
`body has a width and length such that a single robot vehicle essentially
`covers a single opening while retrieving a storage bin, whereby a
`second robot vehicle can traverse an adjacent column unhindered by
`the first robot.
`
`7. An automated storage system according to claim 1, wherein the wheels
`are arranged as a first set movable along the rolling tracks in the first
`direction, and a second set movable along the rolling tracks in the
`second direction.
`
`8. An automated storage system according to claim 7, where the wheels
`are arranged symmetrically in relation to the cavity.
`
`9. An automated storage system according to claim 8, wherein the wheels
`are arranged near the lower corners of the vehicle.
`
`10. A robot vehicle for transporting storage bins in a bin storage system,
`comprising
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 14 of 74
`
`

`

`a. a vehicle body with a rectangular cross section,
`
`b. a cavity arranged internally within the vehicle body arranged to
`receive a storage bin from a storage column,
`
` c. two sets of wheels attached to the vehicle body symmetrically about
`the cavity, arranged for traveling in a first and second directions along
`a plurality of rolling tracks of the bin storage system, said bin storage
`system being of the type comprising:
`
`a three-dimensional storage structure comprising:
`
`i. a plurality of pillars which are positioned with internal distances
`and in a rectangular arrangement, wherein the rectangular
`arrangement of the pillars define storage columns for the storage of
`a plurality of vertically-stacked storage bins, and
`
`ii. supporting rails arranged in a two-dimensional matrix on top of
`the pillars, said supporting rails defining rolling tracks arranged in
`a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first
`direction, the supporting rails further defining openings for the
`storage columns.
`
`11. A robot vehicle according to claim 10, wherein robot vehicle
`comprises a rectangular vehicle body.
`
`12. A robot vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the wheels are
`arranged as a first set movable along the rolling tracks in the first
`direction, and a second set movable along the rolling tracks in the
`second direction.
`
`13. A robot vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the wheels are
`arranged near the lower corners of the vehicle.
`
`14. A robot vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the cavity comprises a
`downwardly facing opening of essentially the same width and length
`as the openings for the storage columns.
`
`15. A robot vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the vehicle body has a
`width and length such that a single robot vehicle essentially covers a
`single opening while retrieving a storage bin, whereby a second robot
`vehicle can traverse an adjacent column unhindered by the first robot.
`
`3. The ’478 patent
`
`Complainants assert claim 19 of the ’478 patent. Notice of Investigation at 1-2 (Nov. 20,
`
`2020). Notice of Investigation at 1-2 (Nov. 20, 2020).
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 15 of 74
`
`

`

`19. An automated storage system, comprising
`
`a. a three-dimensional storage structure, comprising
`
`i. a plurality of pillars which are positioned with internal distances
`and in a rectangular arrangement, wherein the rectangular
`arrangement of the pillars define storage columns for the storage of
`a plurality of vertically-stacked storage bins,
`
`ii. supporting rails arranged in a two-dimensional matrix on the
`pillars, said supporting rails arranged in a first direction and a
`second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the supporting
`rails defining openings for the storage columns,
`
`b. a plurality of remotely controlled robot vehicles, said robot vehicles
`comprising
`
`i. a vehicle body,
`
`ii. a cavity arranged to receive a storage bin from a storage column,
`
`iii. a plurality of rolling members attached to the vehicle body
`about the cavity, arranged for travelling along the storage structure
`in the first and second directions, whereby the robot vehicle can
`move along the storage structure to position the cavity within the
`cross-sectional area of the storage column to receive the storage
`bin into the cavity for further transport along the storage structure.
`
`C. Agreed constructions
`
`The parties have not stipulated to constructions for any terms from the ’525 patent
`
`family.
`
`D. Disputed constructions
`
`1. “[A/a] plurality of [rolling members/wheels] attached to the vehicle body”
`
`The term “[A/a] plurality of rolling members attached to the vehicle body” appears in
`
`claim 1 of the ’525 patent and claim 19 of the ’478 patent. The term “a plurality of wheels
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 16 of 74
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`attached to the vehicle body” appearsin claim 1 of the ’239 patent.!! The parties dispute the
`
`construction of the term, proposing the following constructions:
`
`Complainants’ Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “At least two
`[rolling members/wheels] attached to the
`vehicle body”
`
`Respondents’ Construction
`“at least one of the two sets of vehicle
`rolling meansis arranged fully within the
`vehicle”
`
`four wheels”
`
`A “set of vehicle rolling means”is a “set of
`
`Complainants propose that the term “[A/a] plurality of [rolling members/wheels] attached
`
`to the vehicle body” be construed to mean “at least two [rolling members/wheels] attached to the
`
`vehicle body,” which Complainants contendreflects the term’s plain and ordinary meaning. CIB
`
`at 13. Respondents propose that the term be construed to mean “at least one of the two sets of
`
`vehicle rolling meansis arranged fully within the vehicle.” RIB at 22-29.
`
`Forthe reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that Complainants’ proposed
`
`construction reflects the claim language andthe well-established meaning of “plurality.” See,
`
`e.g., Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(“In accordance with standard dictionary definitions, we have held that ‘plurality,’ when used in
`
`a claim, refers to two or more items, absent some indication to the contrary.”). In contrast,
`
`Respondents’ proposed construction adds a limitation that is not required by the claim language:
`
`that one of the two sets of “vehicle rolling means” be “arrangedfully within the vehicle.” !
`
`1! Both parties identify claim 10 of the ’239 patent as containing the term “a plurality of [rolling
`members/wheels] attached to the vehicle body.” CIB at 13; RIB at 22. The term recited in claim
`10, however,is different: “two sets of wheels attached to the vehicle body.”
`
`12 Respondents’ proposed construction also defines “a plurality of rolling members/wheels”as
`“sets of vehicle rolling means,” which Respondents define in turn as a “set of four wheels.” RIB
`at 22. Complainants argue that this aspect of Respondents’ proposed construction improperly
`limits “plurality of [rolling members/wheels] to a set of exactly four wheels.” CIB at 14-15.
`Respondents state they were attempting “to simplify an issue that should not be in dispute”
`
`17
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 17 of 74
`
`IPR2021-00274 AutoStore Ex. 2059
`Page 17 of 74
`
`

`

`Respondents do not point to any support in the claim language for this limitation but instead
`
`argue that these limitations arise from the patentee’s disavowal of claim scope. See, e.g., RIB at
`
`2 (“Every Asserted Claim of the ’525, ’239, and ’478 Patents requires ‘[a] vehicle body’ and
`
`‘wheels’ or ‘rolling members’ that are ‘attached to the vehicle body.’ While cl