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
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (AMENDED) - 1
`No. 24-cv-01490
`
`
`
`THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD., KEY
`PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD.,
` P l a i n t i f f s ,
`v.
`
`NINTENDO CO., LTD.,
`NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`NO. 2:24-cv-01490-JLR
`
`LPR 132 JOINT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`(AMENDED)
`
`Markman Hearing: Scheduled for
`November 18, 2025, 9 a.m.
`
`
` Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 132 and Dkt. 31, Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations
`Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limi ted (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and
`Defendants Nintendo of America Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd. (c ollectively, “Defendants”)
`hereby submit this Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement and Prehearing Statement.
`The parties have reached agreement to narrow certain terms at issue for claim construction.
`There is also a minor typographical error co rrected on page 29A (reflected in 30B). A
`redline comparison of Attachment A against that included in Dkt. 44 is included as
`Attachment B.
`The asserted claims are:
`U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571: claims 1-20
`U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397: claims 1-22
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 1 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (AMENDED) - 2
`No. 24-cv-01490
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247: claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19
`U.S. Patent No. 8,115,731: claims 1-3, 11, 13-14
`U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065: claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, 20-26, 28-32, 34, 37-38, 40-42
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,305: claims 1-3, 6
`I. The construction of those claim terms, phrases, or clauses on which the
`parties agree
`
`Term Agreed Construction
`M substreams
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,305, claim 6
`M symbol substreams
`the space-time coding function
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,305, claim 6
`the space-time coding block
`[an/the] OFDM symbol
`U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065, claims 1, 9, 17,
`25, 31, and 37
`[a/the] one of the plurality of OFDM
`symbols
`the pilot symbols / the received pilot
`symbols
`U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065, claims 2, 4, 10,
`12, 18, 20, 26, 28, 32, 34, 38 and 40
`the pilot symbols [(corresponding to) |
`(for)] the first antenna and the pilot symbols
`[(corresponding to) | (for)] the second
`antenna
`the housing
`U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247, claim 19
`a housing
`the/a connector
`U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247, claim 13
`The first instance of “the connector” should
`be construed as “a connector” and vice
`versa.
`The parties also agree that the preambles of each of the following patents are limiting:
`U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065 (claims 1, 9, 17, 25, 31, 37), 7,529,305 (claim 1), 9,542,571
`(claim 1), 8,610,397 (claims 1, 18). These agreements are withou t waiver of any of
`Plaintiffs’ claims or Defendants’ defenses.
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 2 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (AMENDED) - 3
`No. 24-cv-01490
`
`II. Each party’s proposed construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or
`clause
`Attachment A.
`III. The ten most important disputed claim terms
`The parties submit the following ten claim terms for construction.
`8,115,731
`i. “a direction substantially parallel or substantially perpendicular to the
`orientation” (claim 1)
`8,545,247
`ii. “inner wall” (claims 1, 12, 13, 15)
`iii. “support” (claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16)
`9,313,065
`iv. “wherein the pilot symbols for the first antenna correspond to a first code
`and the pilot symbols for the second antenna correspond to a second code”
`(claims 1, 9, 17, 25, 31, 37)
`7,529,305
`v. “mth” (claim 6)
`vi. “m-1” (claim 6)
`vii. “a delay arrangement, arranged such that for each symbol of the M symbol
`substreams a time of representation of the symbol in the M space-time
`coded streams is different for each of the M space-time coded streams”
`(claim 1);
`viii. “delay elements adapted to insert a delay in at least one of the M
`substreams” (claim 6)
`9,542,571
`ix. “list of applications permitted for installation” (claim 1, 10, 17)
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 3 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (AMENDED) - 4
`No. 24-cv-01490
`
`8,610,397
`x. “charging rate” (claims 1, 11, 18)
`IV. The anticipated length of time necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing
`The parties anticipate that the hearing should take at least half a day, given the
`number of patents-in-suit and disputed terms. There are six patents-in-suit, none with any
`familial relationship. As a result, time may be spent providing context and background for
`each of the six patents in order to better explain the claim construction dispute.
`V. The proposed order of presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing
`The parties propose that the Court hear claim construction arguments on a patent-
`by-patent, term-by-term basis. The parties disagree on the order of the argument.
`Plaintiffs’ Position
`Plaintiffs propose proceeding term-by-te rm. The party proposing a term should
`proceed first. The other party would then respond, and the proposing party may rebut.
`Defendants’ Position
`Defendants propose going term-by-term, with Defendants first, then Plaintiffs, then
`Defendants’ rebuttal, since for many of the terms, Defendants are proposing indefiniteness
`and/or a specific construction based on intrinsic and/or extrinsic evidence.
`VI. The parties’ position on whether, why, and the extent to which the Court
`should consider live testimony at the Claim Construction Hearing
`
`The parties currently believe that live testimony will not be needed.
`VII. The parties’ position as to whether there should be a tutorial on the subject
`matter of the patent(s) at issue
`The parties agree that a tutorial would benefit the Court, at least as to the ʼ065 Patent
`and ʼ305 Patent. The ’065 Patent is titled “Scattered Pilot Pattern and Channel Estimation
`Method for MIMO-OFDM Systems.” The ’305 Patent is titled “Combination of Space-
`Time Coding and Spatial Multiplexing, a nd the Use of Orthogonal Transformation in
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 4 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (AMENDED) - 5
`No. 24-cv-01490
`
`Space-Time Coding.”
`Plaintiffs’ Position
`Plaintiffs suggest that a ny tutorials be provided to the Court in advance of
`the Markman hearing (at a time to be decided by the Court) and that the parties be permitted
`to use them during the hearing.
`Defendants’ Position
`Defendants suggest the tutorial be presented live, on the same day as the
`Claim Construction Hearing, so that the Court may ask questions.
`VIII. Whether a pre-hearing conference, prior to the Claim Construction Hearing,
`is necessary
`Because the parties disagree on the “ten most important disputed claim terms,” a
`pre-hearing conference may be beneficial.
`IX. Whether the parties believe the Court should appoint an independent expert
`
`The parties do not believe an independent expert is necessary.
`
`
`
`DATED: September 24, 2025
`
`TOWNSEND LEGAL CORP.
`Roger M. Townsend, WSBA #25525
`380 Winslow Way, Suite 200
`Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
`Tel: (206) 761-2480
`Roger@townsendlegal.com
`
`By: s/ Roger M. Townsend
`
`REICHMAN JORGENSEN
`LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP
`Khue Hoang (pro hac vice)
`khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com
`Patrick Colsher (pro hac vice)
`pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com
`400 Madison Avenue, Suite 14D
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 381-1965
`
`Matthew G. Berkowitz
`(pro hac vice)
`By: s/ Matthew J. Brigham
`
`LOWE GRAHAM JONES
`Mark P. Walters (Bar No. 30819)
`1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1130
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: +1 206 381 3300
`Fax: +1 206 381 3301
`Email: walters@lowegrahamjones.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`Matthew J. Brigham (pro hac vice)
`Dena Chen (pro hac vice)
`Patrick W. Lauppe (pro hac vice)
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Tel. (650) 843-5000
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 5 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (AMENDED) - 6
`No. 24-cv-01490
`
`mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com
`Jeff Leung (pro hac vice)
`jleung@reichmanjorgensen.com
`Michael M. Polka (pro hac vice)
`mpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com
`Yue (Joy) Wang (pro hac vice)
`ywang@reichmanjorgensen.com
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 623-1401
`
`Taylor N. Mauze (pro hac vice)
`tmauze@reichmanjorgensen.com
`515 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (650) 623-1401
`
`
`Attorneys for Malikie Innovations Ltd.
`and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
`
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Email: mbrigham@cooley.com
`dchen@cooley.com
`plauppe@cooley.com
`
`Stephen Smith (pro hac vice)
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 202-842-7800
`Fax: 202-842-7899
`Email: stephensmith@cooley.com
`
`Eamonn Gardner (pro hac vice)
`1144 15
`th Street, Suite 2300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel: 720-566-4000
`Fax: 720-566-4099
`Email: egardner@cooley.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`NINTENDO CO., LTD., and
`NINTENDO O
`F AMERICA INC.
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 6 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`Attachment A
`
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 7 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 1A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,542,571
`list of applications permitted for
`installation
`
`claims 1, 10, 17
`Proposed Construction
`No construction required.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`6:55–64 (“… so long as owner control
`information store is capable of storing a
`required application list, and in some
`instances an allowed application list
`and/or an excluded application list, the
`particular control in formation insertion
`system and method can vary significantly
`….”); 5:25–43; 15:56–64; 20:11–28;
`21:21–26; 21:36–48; fig. 2
`Proposed Construction
`list of applications permitted by the
`owner for installation
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’571 patent, Figs. 2, 3-6, 9; 1:41-43
`(“This system relates generally to
`electronic devices, and in particular to
`controlling application installation of
`such devices by a device owner.”), 4:34-
`5:5 (“…The application lists provide
`owner control of appl ication installation
`and deletion on the electronic
`device....”), 5:25-43 (“The owner
`information source 224 and the
`owner control information
`source 234 could be local memory
`devices, communication modules
`through which remote memory devices
`storing owner information and owner
`control information are accessible, or
`possibly user interfaces through which
`owner information and owner control
`information are entered.”), 6:32-54 (“…
`
`In a large company, for example,
`corporate computer system
`administrators may be authorized to
`perform owner information insertion
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 8 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 2A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`operations from administrator computer
`systems, or from any corporate computer
`system from which administrative
`functions can be accessed, thereby
`providing multiple owner information
`insertion points 220. Similarly, when an
`owner allows users to insert digitally
`signed owner control information onto
`electronic devices, as described above,
`each user's computer system may be used
`as an owner control information
`insertion point 230....”), 6:55-64 (“… so
`long as owner contro l information store
`is capable of storing a required
`application list, and in some instances an
`allowed application list and/or an
`excluded application li st, the particular
`control information insertion system and
`method can vary significantly, and use
`any conventional inse rtion/interfacing
`technology, without impacting the owner
`application control systems and methods
`discussed herein.”), 7:39-53 (“Owner
`control information, in which an owner
`of the mobile device 30 specifies usage
`permissions and restrictions for
`the mobile device 30…”), 10:3-8 (“In an
`authorization record, an owner of
`the mobile device 30 specifies a list of
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 9 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 3A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`software applications that a user is
`authorized to install on the mobile
`device 30…”), 14:19-23 (“An
`authorization record specifies particular
`software applications that are authorized
`for installation on the mobile
`device 30…”), 14:63-15:16 (“…If no
`owner control informat ion is present on
`the mobile device 30, then no owner
`controls have been established for
`the mobile device 30, and the software
`application is installed….”), 15:52-16:56
`(“…if an owner generates a hash of each
`authorized software application and
`includes the hash in the owner control
`information that is inserted onto
`the mobile device 30…”), 17:17-23
`(“…identification information
`associated with installed applications can
`be transmitted to a remote server
`managed by the owner that performs the
`comparison…”), 17:36 -40 (“The list or
`list update can be received in response to
`a request by the device (e.g., request a list
`or update at initialization) or without
`such a request (e.g., responsive to an
`authorization modification by the owner
`on a remote owner administration
`server).”), 17:48-67 (“…Such a write or
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 10 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 4A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`erase command is not executed unless a
`digital signature is verified using the
`owner's digital si gnature public key
`stored on the mobile device 30….”),
`18:1-61 (“Owner control information
`may also include an excluded software
`application list that uniquely identifies
`software applications that the owner of
`an electronic device establishes cannot
`be installed on the device. An excluded
`software application list allows an owner
`to ensure that every owned electronic
`device does not contain particular
`malicious and/or counter productive
`software applications.”), 19:35-39
`(“At step 92, owner control information
`is established, based on how an owner
`wishes to control an electronic device.
`Owner control information, as described
`above, may include an authorized
`software application list and a required
`software application list, for example.”),
`20:3-28 (“The owner control
`information, such as the software
`application lists and the application
`operation restrictions described above,
`can be maintained on a remote server
`managed by the device owner. … In
`some implementations, a
`graphical user
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 11 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 5A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`interface can be provided through which
`the owner can specify the particular
`control information associated with a
`device or device group.”), 20:58-21:48
`(“…The owner control information on
`the remote server can be managed in a
`variety of ways including through
`provision of a management user interface
`such as the one depicted in FIG. 9….”),
`22:13-24 (“Alternatively, a default
`action in response to a negative
`determination at step 114 could be to
`revert to step 122, when an owner does
`not wish to restrict device operations
`before owner control information is
`inserted….”), 22:43-67 (“…As an
`example, a system of owner application
`control of an electronic device can
`comprise an owner control information
`store configured to store owner control
`information for controlling operation of
`the electronic device, and more
`specifically installation and/or deletion
`of applications on th e electronic device
`and/or restrictions on operations by
`applications once installed….”), 23:5-16
`(“Such a method can includes verifying
`that an application in a required list in an
`owner control information store is
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 12 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 6A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`available for execution on the device,
`and if the application in the required list
`is not verified as available, initiating
`download and installation of such
`application from an external application
`source such as a computer system or
`memory device….”); 29:40-44 (“…the
`owner control inform ation includes an
`authorization record and an application
`identifier for each of the applications…”)
`
`’571 file history, Oct. 8, 2015
`Amendment, pp. 9-10 (“…Independent
`claim has been amended to recite
`‘wherein the authorization record and the
`application identifier are included in
`owner control information stored on the
`electronic device fo r each application
`allowed to be executed on the electronic
`device, and wherein insertion of
`additional owner c ontrol information
`onto the electronic device is restricted,’
`as recited in previously presented, herein
`canceled, claim 4….”), Claims 1, 12, &
`20; Nov. 10, 2015 Final Rejection, pp. 4-
`8 (“…Fisher shows the principle
`whereby multiple users on a computer
`system and the applications associated
`with that user are
`granted access to
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 13 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 7A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`certain local memory and barred access
`to other local memo ry….”); Jan. 11,
`2016 Amendment, pp. 10-12
`(“…Claim 1, as amended, recites: …
`receiving, by the el ectronic device,
`owner control information that identifies
`permissions associated with applications
`executable by the electronic device…”),
`Claims 1, 12, & 20; Apr. 27, 2016 Final
`Rejection, pp. 3-8 (“…Fisher shows the
`principle whereby multiple users on a
`computer system and the applications
`associated with that user are granted
`access to certain local memory and
`barred access to other local
`memory….”); July 27, 2016
`Amendment, pp. 9-13 (“Claim 1, as
`amended, recites: … receiving, by the
`electronic device, owner control
`information that comprises: a list of
`applications permitted for installation on
`the electronic device, and”), Claims 1,
`12, & 20; Aug. 17, 2016 Notice of
`Allowance, p. 2 (“The claims as now
`amended recite ‘a list of applications
`permitted for insta llation’ along with
`intended permissions for each. This is
`markedly different from an access
`control list, because the access control
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 14 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 8A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`list is a list of permissions for current
`applications and othe r files. The access
`control list would not include files that
`are not currently on the computer, such
`as applications not currentl
`y installed.”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,610,397
`charging rate
`
`claims 1, 11, 18
`Proposed Construction
`No construction required.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`2:60–3:2 (“By way of example, a
`particular rechargeable battery may have
`a higher Voltage and/ or current limit
`associated there with than the portable
`device it is carried by. In such case,
`charging the battery at its highest rated
`Voltage/current level could cause
`damage to the portable device.
`Accordingly, the controller may select
`the actual charging parameter(s) based
`upon a limiting one of the different
`portable device and battery charging
`parameters. Thus, the controller may
`prevent the battery from being charged
`using a charging parameter that could
`damage either the portable device or the
`battery.”); tables 1, 2.
`Proposed Construction
`the current expressed in amperes at
`which a battery is charged
`
`Dictionary Evidence
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standard Terms (7th Ed.) (2000), p.163
`(definition of
`“charging rate”: “The current
`expressed in amperes at which a
`battery is charged.”) (emphasis added).
`
`The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of
`Electrical and Electronics Terms (5th
`Ed.) (1993), p.180 (definition of
`“charging rate”: “The current
`expressed in amperes at which a
`battery is charged.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 7,271,568,
`January 19, 2007 Applicant Remarks
`(“Moreover, the Examiner further
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 15 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 9A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`contends that Mori et al. teaches at least
`one actual charging parameter… As
`noted above, independent Claims 1, 15,
`and 25 have been amended to recite that
`different battery types have respective
`charging rates, and that the charging
`circuit charges rechar geable batteries at
`respective charging rates thereof.
`Nowhere does Mori et al…. teach or
`fairly suggest chargi ng different battery
`types based upon respective charging
`rates thereof as recited in these claims.
`Rather, Mori et al. tracks battery voltage,
`battery temperature, remaining capacity,
`and charging/discharging cycle
`information.”). See also Zane Decl. at
`¶¶ 34-36
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Dr. Regan Zane Decl . at ¶¶ 21-42,
`including ¶ 31 (“the term ‘charging rate’
`does not appear in the specification of the
`‘397 patent”) and ¶ 32 (“a POSITA
`would have understood the term
`‘charging rate’ in the ’397 patent claims
`to mean ‘the current expressed in
`am
`peres at which a battery is charged’”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,545,247
`support
`
`Proposed Construction
`No construction required.
`Proposed Construction
`a structure that limits movement in a
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 16 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 10A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Fig. 4; 5:62–65 (“The connector support
`assembly 308 may be any support that is
`coupled to the housing 200 and includes
`a portion that elastically deforms in
`response to movement of the connector
`400”); 2:15–18
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Garner Report ¶¶ 8–10
`direction
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’247 patent, Figs. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10; 2:21-23
`(“a support coupled to an inner wall of
`the housing, a portion of the support
`being elastically deformable;”), 2:38-39
`(“wherein the porti on of the support
`elastically deforms in response to non-
`axial movement of at least a portion of
`the connector.”), 3:67-4:13 (“In one
`example, the housing 200 includes a seat
`302 and a support wall 300 for receiving
`the portable electron ic device 100. In
`general, the support wall 300 and the seat
`302 support the weight of a received
`portable electronic device 100, although
`in some of the embodiments depicted
`herein, the seat 302 may support more
`weight than the support wall 300. As
`shown in FIG. 3, an edge surface 304 of
`the portable electronic device 100
`contacts the seat 302 of the housing 200
`and a rear surface 306 of the portable
`electronic device 100 contacts the
`support wall 300 of the housing 200. The
`size and shape of the seat 302 and the
`support wall 300 and the angle between
`the seat 302 and the support wall 300
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 17 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 11A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`may be selected to accommodate
`different sizes and types of portable
`electronic devices 100.”), 4:18-19
`(“The dock 150 includes a connector
`support assembly 308 that is coupled to
`an inner surface of the housing 200.”),
`4:51-57 (“The connector support
`assembly 308 includes a support 404, a
`spring component 406, which is received
`in the support 404, and a flexible pad
`412, which is located on a base 408 of the
`support 404. The base 408 of the support
`404 limits movement of the connector
`400 in a z-direction to facilitate coupling
`with a mating connector of the portable
`electronic device 100.”), 5:62-65
`(“The connector s upport assembly 308
`may be any support that is coupled to the
`housing 200 and includes a portion that
`elastically deform s in response to
`movement of the connector 400.”), 6:42-
`46 (“Referring still to FIGS. 8, 9 and 10,
`the connector support assembly 812
`includes a support tr ay 1000, a spring
`component 1002, which is located in the
`support tray 1000, and a pad 1004, which
`is disposed between a base 1008 of the
`support tray 1000 and the spring
`component 1002.), 7:49-52 (“The base
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 18 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 12A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`1008 of the support tray 1000 limits
`movement of the connectors 806, 808 in
`the z-direction to facilitate coupling with
`mating connectors of the portable
`electronic device 100.”)
`
`inner wall
`
`claims 1, 12, 13, 15
`
`Proposed Construction
`No construction required.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Claims 1, 12–15; 4:14–32
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Garner Report ¶¶ 11–15
`Proposed Construction
`internal upright or vertical structure
`enclosing a space
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`‘247, Figs. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12; 2:21-22
`(“a support coupled to an inner wall of
`the housing”), 3:67-4:13 (“In one
`example, the housing 200 includes a seat
`302 and a support wall 300 for receiving
`the portable electron ic device 100. In
`general, the support wall 300 and the seat
`302 support the weight of a received
`portable electronic device 100, although
`in some of the embodiments depicted
`herein, the seat 302 may support more
`weight than the support wall 300. As
`shown in FIG. 3, an edge surface 304 of
`the portable electronic device 100
`contacts the seat 302 of the housing 200
`and a rear surface 306 of the portable
`electronic device 100 contacts the
`support wall 300 of the housin
`g 200. The
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 19 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 13A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`size and shape of the seat 302 and the
`support wall 300 and the angle between
`the seat 302 and the support wall 300
`may be selected to accommodate
`different sizes and types of portable
`electronic devices 100.”), 4:18-19
`(“The dock 150 includes a connector
`support assembly 308 that is coupled to
`an inner surface of the housing 200.”),
`4:51-57 (“The connector support
`assembly 308 includes a support 404, a
`spring component 406, which is received
`in the support 404, and a flexible pad
`412, which is located on a base 408 of the
`support 404. The base 408 of the support
`404 limits movement of the connector
`400 in a z-direction to facilitate coupling
`with a mating connector of the portable
`electronic device 100.), 4:64-66
`(“A collar 418 is located at the top end
`414 of the spring component 406 and ribs
`410 extend from an inner wall 502 of the
`passage 500.), 6:34-36 (“The connectors
`806, 808, 810 are mounted in a connector
`support assembly 812, which is coupled
`to an inner surface of the housing 200.),
`6:46-49 (“The spring component 1002
`includes tabs 820, which mate with
`openin
`gs 822 in a front wall 824 of the
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 20 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 14A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`support tray 1000 to generally fix the
`spring component 1002 relative to the
`support tray 1000.), 7:3-6 (“Collars 1018
`are located at the top end 1202 of the
`spring component 1002 to surround the
`passages 1100, 1102 and ribs 1012
`extend from inner walls 1014 of the
`passages 1100, 1102.), 7:10-12 (“Ribs
`1012 extend from inne r walls 1014 and
`1016 of passages 1100 and 1102 of the
`spring component 1002, respectively.),
`8:6-9 (“Referring also to FIG. 14, the
`support tray 1000 includes openings
`1400, which extend through a rear wall
`1402 of the support tray 1000 to allow
`wiring 1404 of the connectors 806, 808,
`810 to extend therethrough.”)
`
`Dictionary Evidence
`Webster’s New World College
`Dictionary (4th Ed.) (2005), p. 735
`(definition of “inner ”: “located farther
`within; interior; internal.”)
`(emphasis added)
`
`Webster’s New World College
`Dictionary (4th Ed.) (2005), p.1609
`(definition of “wall”: “an
`upright structure of wood, stone, brick,
`Case 2:24-cv-01490-JLR Document 50 Filed 09/24/25 Page 21 of 73
`Nintendo Exhibit 1014
`Page 021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT - 15A
`Claim Language Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`Evidence in Support
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`and Evidence in Support
`etc., serving to enclose, divide, support,
`or protect.”) (emphasis added).
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,115,731
`a direction substantially parallel or
`substantially perpendicular to the
`orientation.
`
`claim 1
`Proposed Construction
`No construc