Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 7333
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`No. 2:17-CV-00676-RWS-RSP
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This lawsuit concerns eight United States patents relating to semiconductor tech-
`
`nology: U.S. Patents 6,197,696; 6,346,736; 6,387,824; 6,602,802; 6,709,950; 6,967,409;
`
`7,279,727; and RE 41,980. The parties have agreed to constructions for certain terms from
`
`six of these patents. See Part II infra.
`
`Terms from three of the patents remain disputed. The ’736 Patent, titled “Trench
`
`Isolated Semiconductor Device,” discloses a device with a dielectric film between the wir-
`
`ing and substrate of a semiconductor to reduce the capacitance between them. The ’824
`
`Patent and ’802 Patent teach methods of forming wiring structures using a porous film
`
`between the wiring, which also reduces internal capacitance of the device. The lower the
`
`capacitance between the wiring and the substrate (in the case of the ’736 Patent) and the
`
`wiring in the devices (in the case of the ’824 and ’802 Patents), the higher the operating
`
`speed.
`
`1 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 7334
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the
`
`right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`As such, if the parties dispute the scope of the claims, the court must determine their mean-
`
`ing. See, e.g., Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff’g, 52
`
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc); Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`
`503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`When construing claims, “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`
`715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Courts must
`
`therefore “look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented
`
`invention.” Id. (citations omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term
`
`is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. This “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 ap-
`
`pears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.
`
`Intrinsic evidence is the primary resource for claim construction. See Power-One,
`
`Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312). For certain claim terms, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood
`
`2 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 7335
`
`by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim con-
`
`struction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. But for claim terms
`
`with less-apparent meanings, courts consider “those sources available to the public that
`
`show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to
`
`mean . . . [including] the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specifica-
`
`tion, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific princi-
`
`ples, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id.
`
`II. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties agree to the following constructions, which the Court hereby adopts.
`
`Joint Cl. Constr. & Prehearing Statement [Dkt. # 85] at 2–3; Notice of Supplement to Joint
`
`Cl. Constr. Statement [Dkt. # 103].
`
`Claim Term
`using the [first resist pattern/second resist
`pattern and the mask pattern/patterned
`third insulating film] as a mask
`(’696 Patent, cl.13)
`step order
`(’696 Patent, cl.13)
`interlayer insulating film
`(’980 Patent, cl.18, 33, 35, 50)
`small dielectric constant
`(’980 Patent, cl.18, 35)
`
`Agreed Construction
`using the [first resist pattern/second resist
`pattern and the mask pattern/patterned
`third insulating film] to define areas for
`etching
`
`steps (a)–(k) must be performed in the or-
`der listed.
`
`an insulating film located between but not
`within layers
`
`a dielectric constant not greater than that
`of silicon dioxide
`
`3 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 7336
`
`said bonding pad in said opening and said
`second dielectric film of said surface pro-
`tecting film completely cover said first di-
`electric film so as not to expose said first
`dielectric film
`(’980 Patent, cl.18)
`wherein said bonding pad covers said
`opening
`(’980 Patent, cl.35)
`a surface protecting film
`(’980 Patent, cl.18, 35)
`a conductor pad which is provided on the
`gate interconnect part
`(’727 Patent, cl.10)
`wherein the gate contact is in contact with
`the conductor pad
`(‘727 Patent, cl.10)
`a second trench portion filled with an in-
`sulating material formed to separate a plu-
`rality of dummy semiconductor portions in
`said isolation region
`(’736 Patent, cl.6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16)
`resistor film
`(’736 Patent, cl.13, 14, 16)
`forming . . . on
`(’950 Patent, cl.1, 17)
`formed on
`(’409 Patent, cl.1, 25, 26, 64)
`
`the bonding pad and the second dielectric
`film each covers a portion of the first die-
`lectric film, and the bonding pad and the
`second dielectric film collectively cover
`the first dielectric film so that it is not ex-
`posed to above
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`wherein the gate contact is physically
`touching the conductor pad
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`forming . . . directly or indirectly on
`
`formed directly or indirectly on
`
`4 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 7337
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“dielectric film” (’736 Patent, cl.6–8)
`
`Godo Kaisha’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Intel’s
`Proposed Construction
`a dielectric film for reducing the capaci-
`tance between the wire and the substrate
`
`FIG. 19 of the ’736 Patent (see below) shows a prior-art trench-isolated semicon-
`
`ductor device having an active region (6) of a silicon substrate (1), a gate electrode (4), and
`
`source/drain regions (5). An isolation region (7) surrounds the active region (6) and in-
`
`cludes multiple trench portions (8), each filled with a silicon oxide film. Semiconductor
`
`portions (9) are between the trench portions (8). A polysilicon wire (10) is on one trench
`
`portion (8). A gate oxide film (2) and gate electrode (4) are on the substrate (1) over the
`
`active region (6). An interlayer insulating film (12) covers the surface of the substrate (1),
`
`and a metal wire (13) is on the insulating film (12). ’736 Patent at 1:35–51.
`
`FIG. 19 of the ’736 Patent
`
`
`
`Generally, these types of trench-isolation techniques improve some operating char-
`
`acteristics relative to other devices, but tend to increase the wire-to-substrate capacitance
`
`because of the smaller distances between the wire (13) and substrate (1) in the regions
`
`5 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 7338
`
`between the trenches (8). See generally ’736 Patent at 2:48–3:24. These higher capaci-
`
`tances negatively affect operating speed. Id. at abst. (“What results is a semiconductor de-
`
`vice having lower total wiring-to-substrate capacitance and a higher operating speed.”).
`
`To compensate, the ’736 Patent teaches reducing the capacitance between the wiring
`
`and substrate, relative to the prior art, by interposing a dielectric film between the semi-
`
`conductor portions (9) of the isolation region (7) and the interlayer insulating film (12).
`
`For example, FIG. 12 of the ’736 Patent (see below) shows an underlying insulating film
`
`(81) made of a silicon oxide film formed over the semiconductor portions (9) and trench
`
`portions (8) of the isolation region (7). This insulating film (81) covers the polysilicon wire
`
`(10), which results in reduced capacitance between the wire (13) and substrate (1) relative
`
`to the wiring-to-substrate capacitances of the embodiment shown in FIG. 19. Id. at 23:2–
`
`33.
`
`FIG. 12 of the ’736 Patent
`
`
`
`Claim 6 recites “a dielectric film” interposed between the dummy semiconductor
`
`portions (9) of the isolation region (7) and the interlayer insulating film (12). The parties
`
`agree that the “dielectric film” is the underlying insulating film (81) shown in FIG. 12, but
`
`dispute the proper construction for the term.
`
`6 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7339
`
`Intel argues “the claimed ‘dielectric film’ must be able to reduce the capacitance
`
`between the claimed ‘wire’ and ‘substrate’ layers.” Def.’s Resp. [Dkt. # 106] at 25. “[T]hat
`
`ability constitutes the purported inventive aspect of the claims,” id., which warrants the
`
`inclusion of the purpose of the dielectric film in the Court’s construction. Godo Kaisha
`
`argues (1) the patentee never expressed an intent to depart from the plain meaning of the
`
`term; (2) intent is not an element of patent infringement; and (3) Intel’s proposed construc-
`
`tion fails to make clear to what reference the capacitance must be reduced. Pl.’s Br. [Dkt.
`
`# 102] at 5–8.
`
`The Court sees no compelling reason to adopt Intel’s construction. Claim 6 covers
`
`structure rather than function or purpose. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,
`
`909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what
`
`a device does.”). The patentees clearly recited the limitation with only structural language
`
`using a term well known in the art. Moreover, there is no dispute about whether interposing
`
`the dielectric film reduces the capacitance between the wire and the substrate. See Hr’g Tr.
`
`[Dkt. # 137] at 51:21–23 (Intel’s agreement that the correct comparison about whether the
`
`device reduces capacitance is to a device without dielectric film); see id. at 52:12–19 (In-
`
`tel’s agreement that, using that comparison, any dielectric film interposed as required by
`
`Claim 6 reduces the capacitance between the wire and the substrate). Thus, introducing a
`
`statement of intended purpose does not resolve any dispute over claim scope and unneces-
`
`sarily complicates an otherwise straight-forward claim limitation.
`
`7 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 7340
`
`Intel relies heavily on Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008),
`
`which addressed the proper construction of “flow restrictor.” The district court’s construc-
`
`tion merely required the flow restrictor “to restrict the rate of flow.” Praxair, 543 F.3d at
`
`1322–23. The appellate court, however, looked to the “fundamental object of the invention
`
`disclosed by the [asserted] patent specification” and concluded mere restriction of flow
`
`was not sufficient. Id. at 1324. The appellate court instead construed the term as “a structure
`
`that serves to restrict the rate of flow sufficiently to prevent a hazardous situation.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, Praxair addressed a dispute about claim scope—the degree to
`
`which the flow rate must be restricted by the structure.
`
`Praxair is distinguishable for two reasons. First, the parties in this case have no
`
`dispute about the scope of “dielectric film” or the result of interposing the dielectric film
`
`in the manner recited by Claim 6. The parties, for example, agree the correct comparison
`
`for reduction of capacitance is to a device without dielectric film (as opposed to a device
`
`with a different dielectric film). Hr’g Tr. [Dkt. # 137] at 51:21–23. The parties also agree
`
`that, using that comparison, any dielectric film interposed as required by Claim 6 reduces
`
`the capacitance between the wire and the substrate. See id. at 52:12–19.
`
`Second, in Praxair, the district court, the parties, and the appellate court all proposed
`
`or adopted constructions that included functional language. Both parties’ initial construc-
`
`tions for “flow restrictor” included non-structural language. Praxair proposed “a structure
`
`in the form of a tube with multiple narrow passages that exhibit capillary action and can
`
`8 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 7341
`
`restrict flow.” Joint Cl. Constr. Statement [Dkt. # 90], No. 03-1158-SLR (D. Del) at 4 (em-
`
`phasis added). ATMI proposed “an elongated cylindrical structure with at least two uni-
`
`formly shaped bores . . . such that friction significantly impedes the mass flow rate of gas
`
`through the bores.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the dispute was not whether to use non-
`
`structural language in the construction, but rather which non-structural language to use.
`
`The Court rejects Intel’s proposed construction as unnecessary. Moreover, because
`
`the Court sees no other dispute between the parties about the meaning of “dielectric film,”
`
`the Court will not further construe the term at this time.
`
`B.
`
`“form . . . a porous film” (’824 Patent, cl.3); “forming a porous film”
`(’802 Patent, cl.1–2)
`
`Godo Kaisha’s
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Alternatively,
`“form[ing] . . . a film having pores”
`
`Intel’s
`Proposed Construction
`“form[ing] . . . a film with fine holes hav-
`ing a dielectric constant of 2 or less”
`
`Like the ’736 Patent, the ’824 and ’802 Patents disclose manufacturing methods that
`
`reduce capacitance between internal components of semiconductor devices to increase op-
`
`erating speed. ’824 Patent at 1:18–20; ’802 at Patent 1:23–25. Specifically, these patents
`
`teach achieving this result with a specific method of forming a porous film to be used as
`
`an inter-layer dielectric between wires. ’824 Patent at 1:21–26; ’802 Patent at 1:26–31.
`
`The parties dispute the proper construction for “porous film.” In arguing for a con-
`
`struction that includes “fine holes,” Intel stresses that the specification uses that term 37
`
`times to describe formation of the porous film. Def.’s Br. [Dkt. # 106] at 18. Moreover, the
`
`9 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 7342
`
`specifications describe an “object of the present invention” as “allow[ing] the formation of
`
`a porous film having a dielectric constant of 2 or less in a simple process at low cost.” ’824
`
`Patent at 2:18–21; see also id. at 1:26–28 (“[P]orous film is only the film capable of provid-
`
`ing a dielectric constant of 2.0 or lower.”). Intel claims these aspects of its construction
`
`provide needed objective anchors from the specification for the term. Def.’s Br. [Dkt.
`
`# 106] at 13–19. When the term is “a relative term of degree,” says Intel, the Court should
`
`look to the specification for the proper benchmark. Id. at 17 (citing Network-1 Sec. Sols.,
`
`Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 632, 644 (E.D. Tex. 2010)).
`
`The Court rejects Intel’s proposed construction for three reasons. First, the Court is
`
`not convinced that “porous film” is a term of degree or that, even if it is, one of ordinary
`
`skill could not ascertain the scope of the claim from the specification. Porous films are
`
`well-known in the art. Indeed, the patents themselves recognize the use of porous film as
`
`interlayer dielectrics instead of then-conventional silicon oxide film. See, e.g., ’824 Patent
`
`at 1:23–26 (recognizing that porous film has been studied as a replacement for conventional
`
`silicon oxide film). Moreover, it is clearly from the claim language that the porous film is
`
`the output of the plasma process, and is thus somewhat self-defining. In other words, the
`
`porous film is the film created by the removal of the organic component of the organic-
`
`inorganic hybrid film.
`
`Second, as for the dielectric constant, the patents describe Embodiment 6 as forming
`
`a porous film with a dielectric constant greater than 2 using the method. See id. at 12:29–
`
`33. The patent explains a lower dielectric constant is not necessary because there are no
`
`10 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 7343
`
`metal wires in the layer to cause parasitic capacitance. Id. at 12:34–42. The same hydrogen
`
`plasma process operates on adjacent film to yield a dielectric constant of 1.7, and the dif-
`
`ferent porosity is solely a function of the ratio of the organic to inorganic components of
`
`the two hybrid films. That is consistent with the object of the invention, which is to allow,
`
`but not necessarily require, formation of a porous film having a dielectric constant of 2. Id.
`
`at 2:18–21. The patents’ use of “porous film” in this manner rebuts any implication that
`
`the patentees defined “porous film” as only film having a dielectric constant of 2 or less. 1
`
`Third, although the patents repeatedly use “fine holes” to describe the process of
`
`creating the porous film, there is no suggestion or support for the notion that all porous
`
`film has “fine holes.” Moreover, the Court does not see how “fine holes” provides the ob-
`
`jective anchor that Intel claims is necessary, as the dispute then shifts to the meaning of
`
`“fine” and “holes.”
`
` Having rejected Intel’s proposed construction, the Court affirms its preliminary po-
`
`sition that no further construction is necessary for this term.
`
`C.
`
`step order (’824 Patent, claim 3)
`
`Godo Kaisha’s
`Proposed Construction
`The claimed steps do not need to be per-
`formed in the order recited.
`
`Intel’s
`Proposed Construction
`All steps in claim 3 must be performed in
`the order recited in the claim.
`
`
`1 The patents’ statement that “the porous film is only the film capable of providing a dielectric constant of 2.0 or
`lower” is problematic for Plaintiff. In the end, however, the Court concludes this awkward language stems from the
`translation of the earlier-filed Japanese applications to which the ‘824 and ‘802 Patents claim priority. The Court
`believes the patentees intended to note that only porous film, and not conventional silicon oxide film, will allow for
`a dielectric constant of 2.0 or less. This harmonizes with the description in Embodiment 6 of a porous film having a
`constant of 2.3.
`
`11 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 7344
`
`Generally, “a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a mat-
`
`ter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the
`
`specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” See Mformation Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). That is at least partially the case here.
`
`Claim 3 recites the steps of:
`
`[(a)] depositing, on a substrate, an organic-inorganic hybrid film
`having a siloxane skeleton;
`
`[(b)] patterning said organic-inorganic hybrid film to form a wire
`groove in said organic-inorganic hybrid film;
`
`[(c)]
`
`filling a metal film in said wire groove to form a buried wire
`composed of said metal film; and
`
`[(d)] performing a plasma process using a plasma derived from a gas
`containing a reducing gas with respect to said organic-inor-
`ganic hybrid film to form an inter-layer dielectric which is a
`porous film composed of said organic-inorganic hybrid film.
`
`’824 Patent at 15:32–16:9 (emphasis added). Clearly, (b) must come before (c) because a
`
`wire groove cannot be filled unless it has first been formed. And clearly (a) must come
`
`before (b) because the hybrid film must be deposited before it can be patterned and a wire
`
`groove formed in it.
`
`As for step (d), Intel argues the step converts the organic-inorganic hybrid film into
`
`a porous film, after which there is no hybrid film on which the other steps can operate.
`
`H’rg. Tr. [Dkt. # 137] at 117:10–24. Thus, says Intel, step (d) must come last.
`
`12 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 7345
`
`The Court disagrees for three reasons. First, the specification clearly discloses em-
`
`bodiments that perform the plasma process before filling the metal groove. See, e.g., id. at
`
`11:3–17; id. at 11:59–12:28. Thus, step (d) can be performed at least before step (c). Sec-
`
`ond, nothing in the claim language suggests there is no hybrid film on which to operate
`
`after step (d). To the contrary, step (d) recites its continued existence: “a porous film com-
`
`posed of said organic-inorganic hybrid film.” ’824 Patent at 16:8–9. Third, the Court dis-
`
`cerns no technical reason from the specification as to why step (d) must happen after step
`
`(b).
`
`The Court affirms its preliminary construction. The first three steps of this claim
`
`must be performed in the recited order, but the “performing” step can happen any time after
`
`the “depositing” step.
`
`D.
`
`step order (’802 Patent, cl.1)
`
`Godo Kaisha’s
`Proposed Construction
`The claimed steps do not need to be per-
`formed in the order recited.
`
`Intel’s
`Proposed Construction
`All steps in claim 1 must be performed in
`the order recited in the claim.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’802 Patent recites
`
`(a) depositing, on a substrate, an organic-inorganic hybrid film having
`a siloxane skeleton; and
`
`(b) forming a porous film composed of said organic-inorganic hybrid
`film.
`
`Godo Kaisha argues the ’802 Patent discloses performing both steps concurrently and that
`
`nothing in the claim language requires ordering the steps. Pl.’s Br. [Dkt. # 102] at 22–23
`
`13 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 7346
`
`(citing ’802 Patent 2:36–47).
`
`The Court disagrees. The passage cited by Godo Kaisha summarizes both Embodi-
`
`ment 1, which uses plasma-enhanced CVD for deposition on the substrate and a hydrogen
`
`reducing gas, and Embodiment 3, which uses plasma enhanced CVD for deposition on the
`
`substrate and an ammonia reducing gas. See ’802 Patent at 3:42–44.2 The specification
`
`describes both embodiments as “first” depositing an organic-inorganic hybrid film on a
`
`substrate using plasma enhanced CVD, id. at 6:55–65; id. at 9:1–5, and “subsequently” or
`
`“next” performing a plasma process to decompose the organic component, id. at 7:7–15;
`
`id. at 9:6–14. Further, forming the porous film first would obviate any need to then deposit
`
`an organic-inorganic hybrid film on the substrate, as the porous film would be deposited
`
`directly on the substrate instead.
`
`The Court affirms its preliminary construction: The steps of Claim 1 must be per-
`
`formed in the recited order.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`The Court ORDERS that each party must not refer, directly or indirectly, to its own
`
`or any other party’s claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the
`
`Court ORDERS the parties to refrain from mentioning any part of this opinion, other than
`
`the actual positions adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to
`
`
`2 Embodiment 2 uses a thermal (rather than plasma) process to form the porous film. ’802
`Patent at 8:31–36. Embodiment 4 does not use a plasma enhanced CVD process to deposit
`the siloxane skeleton. Embodiments 5–7 relate to forming a wiring structure and therefore
`are not relevant to determining the order of steps for Claim 1.
`
`14 / 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/13/18 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 7347
`
`claim construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the positions adopted by
`
`the Court.
`
`15 / 15
`
`____________________________________
`ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
`
`SIGNED this 12th day of September, 2018.
`
`