Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1734
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00105-JRG
`§
`
`§
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., §
`
`§
`
`§
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`In this patent case, Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas”) alleges infringement by Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., (collectively, “Samsung”) of certain
`
`claims of U.S. Patent 8,526,767 (the “’767 Patent”). The patent relates to “[a] state machine gesture
`
`recognition algorithm for interpreting streams of coordinates received from a touch sensor,” ’767
`
`Patent at [57].
`
`The parties dispute the scope of two terms, with Samsung challenging each term as
`
`indefinite. Having considered the parties’ briefing,1 along with arguments of counsel during the
`
`hearing conducted on December 16, 2021, the Court resolves the parties’ disputes as follows.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ’767 Patent relates to gesture recognition by a two-dimensional touch sensor, which
`
`might be implemented, for example, as a touchpad of a computer or the screen of a cellular phone.
`
`See ’767 Patent (Dkt. No. 11-1) at 1:12–15, fig.12 (item 904), fig.13 (item 907). The patent
`
`
`1 Pl.’s Open’g Br., Dkt. No. 65; Defs.’ Resp. Br., Dkt. No. 66; and Pl.’s Reply Br., Dkt. No. 69.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1735
`
`explains that, at the time of invention, the typical methodology was to output, and then process,
`
`positional data (e.g., x- and y-coordinates) from a sensor using conditional if-then-else type
`
`statements. See id. at 2:47–65. That methodology, however, makes it difficult to add code for new
`
`gestures because code for recognizing one gesture often links to code for recognizing other
`
`gestures. Id. at 2:66–3:7.
`
`To address this problem, the ’767 Patent teaches “a state machine approach to designing
`
`and writing the gesture recognition algorithm.” Id. at 3:11–13. Generally, the claimed devices
`
`include a touch sensor, a position-processing unit for calculating a touch location and outputting a
`
`time series of positional data, and a gesture-processing unit that analyzes the data to distinguish
`
`gesture inputs. Id. at 3:12–21. The gesture processing unit includes gesture recognition code made
`
`up of linked state modules, id. at 3:21–25, which is central to the invention.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’767 Patent (above) shows one embodiment of a gesture recognition state
`
`machine. The machine supports five gestures (tap, press, double tap, flick, and drag) and seven
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1736
`
`states (Idle, Touched, Second Tap Pending, Double Tap Pending, Flick Pending, Drag Pending,
`
`and Pressed). The machine begins in the “Idle” state. When a user touches the sensor, the machine
`
`enters the “Touched” state, stores the touch location, and starts a timer. If the timer expires and the
`
`touch location remains the same, the machine generates a “press” event and transitions to the
`
`“Pressed” state. But if the touch location moves by more than a set distance from the initial touch
`
`location before the timer expires, the machine transitions to the “Flick Pending” state. If the user
`
`releases the touch, the machine enters the “Second Tap Pending” state and waits for a second touch
`
`within a certain time. In similar fashion, depending on the requirements for entering and leaving
`
`each state, the machine transitions between the states based on touch locations and timers. The
`
`machine can return to “Idle” from any of the six other states, which the patent calls “gesture-
`
`recognition states.” See generally id. at 8:36–10:50 (describing the 5 events, 7 states, and 17
`
`transitions between states of Figure 1).
`
`The disputed terms concern what the claims recite as “position-processing logic” and
`
`“gesture-processing logic.” Claim 1 concerns:
`
`1. A touch sensor device comprising:
`a sensor having a sensitive area extending in at least one-
`dimension and arranged to output sense signals responsive
`to proximity of an object to the sensitive area;
`a processor operable to execute position-processing logic stored
`in one or more tangible media, the position-processing logic,
`when executed by the processor, configured to:
`calculate positions of interactions with the sensitive area
`from an analysis of the sense signals; and
`output a times series of data indicative of the interaction
`positions on the sensor, the interaction positions
`corresponding to touches; and
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1737
`
`a processor operable to execute gesture-processing logic stored
`in one or more tangible media, the gesture-processing logic,
`when executed by the processor, configured to analyze the
`time series of data to distinguish one or more gesture inputs
`from the time series of data, the gesture-processing logic
`being coded with gesture-recognition code comprising a
`plurality of state-machine modules . . . .
`
`Id. at 20:51–21:4 (emphasis added). Claim 11, which contains the first disputed term, then limits
`
`the relationship between the logic and hardware:
`
`11. The device of claim 1, the position-processing logic being
`accommodated in, and running on, a first integrated circuit and
`the gesture-processing logic being accommodated in, and
`running on, one or more separate integrated circuits.
`
`Id. at 22:9–12 (emphasis added). Claim 13 expressly refers only to “the gesture-processing logic”:
`
`13. A single integrated circuit comprising:
`a memory element;
`a processor operable to execute logic stored in one or more
`tangible media, the logic, when executed by the processor,
`operable to:
`receive a times series of data indicative of the interaction
`positions on a sensor,
`the
`interaction positions
`corresponding to touches;
`analyze the time series of data to distinguish one or more
`gesture inputs from the time series of data, the gesture-
`processing logic being coded with gesture-recognition
`code
`comprising
`a plurality of
`state-machine
`modules, . . . ; and
`output the recognized multi-touch gesture.
`
`Id. at 22:44–23:12 (emphasis added).
`
`The parties dispute the scope of two terms: (1) the entirety of Claim 11; and (2) “the
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1738
`
`gesture-processing logic” in Claim 13.2 Samsung alleges that both terms, as they appear in those
`
`claims, are indefinite.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Generally
`
`“[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 meaning. See, e.g., Verizon
`
`Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Markman
`
`v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996).
`
`Claim construction, however, “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical
`
`Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[c]laim construction is a
`
`matter of [resolving] disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
`
`explain what the patentee covered by the claims . . . .” Id. A court need not “repeat or restate every
`
`claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim construction is for the court.” Id.
`
`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). “[T]he 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
`
`
`2 In their briefing, the parties also disputed the construction for “plurality of gesture-interpretation-state modules” in
`Claims 2, 3, and 6. At the claim-construction hearing, however, the parties announced their agreement that this term
`should be construed as “two or more state modules for interpreting the time series of data to recognize gestures.” The
`Court will adopt that construction.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1739
`
`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 appears, 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 by a person of skill in
`
`the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves
`
`little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see also Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum. Rather, we must
`
`look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.”).
`
`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 specification, the
`
`prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning
`
`of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
`
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`
`U.S. 898, 901 (2014). “A patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed,”
`
`but that consideration must be made while accounting for the inherent limitations of language. Id.
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1740
`
`at 908–09. “Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Sonix Tech. Co. v.
`
`Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`III. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is the skill level of a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573,
`
`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In resolving the appropriate level of ordinary skill, courts consider the types
`
`of and solutions to problems encountered in the art, the speed of innovation, the sophistication of
`
`the technology, and the education of workers active in the field. Id. Importantly, “[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`Here, only Samsung proffers an ordinary level of skill in the art. Specifically, Samsung’s
`
`expert opines that a skilled artisan at the time of invention would have been “someone with at least
`
`a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`field, plus at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of
`
`touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and related firmware
`
`and software, or the equivalent.” (Dkt. No. 66-2, Baker Decl., ¶ 32). Solas does not challenge this
`
`definition or offer a competing view. Thus, for purposes of claim construction, the Court accepts
`
`Samsung’s definition of a skilled artisan as correct.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1741
`
`IV. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Term
`“A single integrated circuit comprising:”
`(Claim 13)
`“plurality of gesture-interpretation-state
`modules” (Claims 2, 3, and 6)
`
`V.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`The preamble is limiting.3
`
`“two or more state modules for interpreting the time
`series of data to recognize gestures”4
`
`A.
`
`“the position-processing logic being accommodated in, and running on, a first
`integrated circuit and the gesture-processing logic being accommodated in,
`and running on, one or more separate integrated circuits” (Claim 11)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`No construction necessary; plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Alternatively, “logic being accommodated
`in . . . integrated circuit[s]” carries its plain and
`ordinary meaning, i.e., some or all of the
`claimed logic is in memory in the claimed
`integrated circuit(s).
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Indefinite.
`
`Samsung’s indefiniteness challenge centers on the phrase “accommodated in.” Specifically,
`
`Samsung asserts there is no plain meaning for logic “accommodated in” an integrated circuit, and
`
`that neither the specification nor the file history help a skilled artisan understand the scope and
`
`meaning of the term. (Dkt. No. 66 at 9–10). According to Samsung, a skilled artisan would
`
`question whether the logic is in the integrated circuits, or merely accessible by the circuits. (Id.
`
`at 12). According to Solas, however, the claim clearly requires the logic to be in the integrated
`
`
`3 Dkt. No. 65 at 6; Dkt. No. 66 at 5.
`4 See Note 2 supra.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1742
`
`circuits. (Dkt. No. 69 at 6).
`
`The Court finds that this term is not indefinite. While “accommodated in” might be an
`
`unusual choice to describe the relationship between logic and hardware, its meaning is clear in
`
`light of the specification: The logic is in, and not merely accessible by, the integrated circuits. In
`
`fact, Claim 1 explains that the logic is “stored in one or more tangible media,” ’767 Patent at
`
`20:55–56, 20:64–65, and a skilled artisan would understand Claim 11 as limiting the type of
`
`“tangible media” to “integrated circuits.” The specification supports this understanding by
`
`describing the implementing code as “embedded in,” “coded with,” or “loaded into” certain types
`
`of integrated circuits. See, e.g., id. at [57] (explaining “[t]he gesture recognition code can
`
`be . . . compiled and embedded in a microcontroller chip, or CPU chip as desired. The gesture
`
`recognition code can be loaded into . . . a microcontroller, or other programmable logic device
`
`such as a field programmable gate array”); id. at 3:26–33 (same); id. at 3:22–23 (describing the
`
`gesture processing unit as “coded with gesture recognition code comprising a plurality of linked
`
`state modules”); id. at 4:35–37 (same). In contrast, nothing in the specification supports Samsung’s
`
`argument that “accommodated in” refers only to accessibility.
`
`Admittedly, “accommodated in” is awkward for a layperson. During prosecution, the
`
`examiner equated “accommodated in” with “reside.” Office Action, Dkt. No. 65-5 at 10 (rejecting
`
`Claim 11 based on U.S. Published Appl’n 2007/0291009 (Wright) ¶ [0052]). Accordingly, for the
`
`benefit of the jury, the Court construes “accommodated in” as “residing in,” which is more
`
`commonly used in this context. See, e.g., https://www.yourdictionary.com/reside (defining
`
`“reside” in the context of computers as “to be located or stored”) (last visited Dec. 18, 2021); U.S.
`
`Patent 6,888,536 at 14:19–20 (referring to “applications residing on [a] host computer system”);
`
`U.S. Patent 7,663,607 at 7:11–22 (“The computer code and data could also reside on a removable
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1743
`
`storage medium and [be] loaded or installed onto the computer system when needed.”); U.S. Patent
`
`8,049,732 at 11:60–62 (describing a look-up table that “may be implemented as one or more look-
`
`up tables residing in a memory of the [application-specific integrated circuit]”); U.S. Published
`
`Appl’n 2007/0291009 (Wright) at [0052] (“Processing device 210 may reside on a common carrier
`
`substrate such as, for example, an integrated circuit (IC) die substrate, a multi-chip module
`
`substrate, or the like.”).5
`
`The Court therefore construes “the position-processing logic being accommodated in,
`
`and running on, a first integrated circuit and the gesture-processing logic being
`
`accommodated in, and running on, one or more separate integrated circuits” to mean “the
`
`position-processing logic residing in, and running on, a first integrated circuit and the
`
`gesture-processing logic residing in, and running on, one or more separate integrated
`
`circuits.”
`
`B.
`
`“the gesture-processing logic” (Claim 13)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“the logic”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Indefinite.
`
`Samsung contends that this term from Claim 13 lacks antecedent basis. (Dkt. No. 66 at 13–
`
`15). Given that lack of antecedent basis, Samsung alleges the intrinsic record provides no guidance
`
`as to what the phrase refers. (Id. at 15). For example, Samsung argues that a skilled artisan would
`
`not understand whether the term refers to “receiv[ing] a time series of data” or “analyz[ing] the
`
`time series of data” recited earlier in the claim. (Id. at 15–16).
`
`Solas, however, asserts a skilled artisan would recognize that the term refers to the “logic”
`
`
`5 In addition to Wright, U.S. Patents 6,888,536, 7,663,607, and 8,049,732 were cited during prosecution of the
`underlying application. ’767 Patent at [56].
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1744
`
`recited earlier in the claim. (Dkt. No. 65 at 16). Comparing Claim 1 to Claim 13, Solas notes that
`
`Claim 1 recites both “position-processing logic” and “gesture-processing logic” while Claim 13
`
`only recites the latter. (Id. at 17–18). Solas reasons that because Claim 13 does not include the
`
`position-processing functions of Claim 1, “the logic” of column 22, lines 46–47 must be the
`
`“gesture processing logic” recited later in the claim. (Id. at 18–19).
`
`As an initial matter, “claims are not necessarily invalid for a lack of antecedent basis.”
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). Rather, “a claim could be indefinite if a term does not have proper antecedent basis where
`
`such basis is not otherwise present by implication or the meaning is not reasonably ascertainable.”
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, when
`
`a claim’s meaning would reasonably be understood by skilled artisans when read in light of the
`
`specification, it is not invalid. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. I.T.C., 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006). Here, then, the Court must decide whether Claim 13, considered in the context of the
`
`specification and despite the alleged lack of explicit antecedent basis for the term, has a reasonably
`
`ascertainable meaning to a skilled artisan. (See id.).
`
`The Court finds that the lack of antecedent basis for “the logic” does not render Claim 13
`
`indefinite. A skilled artisan would understand from a common-sense reading of the claim language
`
`that “the gesture-processing logic” is the logic that “analyze[s] the time series of data.” The
`
`disputed term is part of the “analyze” limitation, which clearly links “the gesture-processing logic”
`
`to the data analysis. In contrast, a skilled artisan would not associate “gesture processing” with
`
`simply receiving data because the term is not part of the “receive” limitation and receiving data is
`
`unrelated to the gesture recognition function as taught by the ’767 Patent.
`
`Other excerpts from the ’767 Patent support this conclusion. Claim 1, for example, recites
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1745
`
`almost identical “analyze” language clearly tied to the gesture-processing logic. See ’767 Patent at
`
`20:64–21:4; see also id. at 22:17–20 (reciting, in Claim 12, “analyzing the time series of data to
`
`distinguish one or more gesture inputs . . . using gesture-recognition code”); id. at 23:15–24
`
`(reciting, in Claim 14, a processor operable to “analyze the time series of data to distinguish one
`
`or more gesture inputs from the time series of data using gesture-recognition code comprising a
`
`plurality of state-machine modules”). Similarly, the specification ties almost identical language to
`
`a gesture processing unit. See id. at 3:19–23 (describing “a gesture processing unit operable to
`
`analyze the time series data to distinguish one or more gesture inputs therefrom, wherein the
`
`gesture processing unit is coded with gesture recognition code comprising a plurality of linked
`
`state modules”); see also id. at 4:32–37 (same). Importantly, the patent does not describe the
`
`gesture-recognition code or logic as being responsible for receiving the time series of data. Thus,
`
`when considered in the proper context, a skilled artisan would understand that “the gesture
`
`processing logic” in Claim 13 refers only to analyzing the time series of data. The Court therefore
`
`rejects Samsung’s indefiniteness challenge.
`
`The Court also rejects Solas’s position that “the gesture-processing logic” is the same
`
`“logic” recited earlier in the claim. Although Solas correctly concludes that Claim 13 excludes
`
`“the position-processing logic” recited in Claim 1, as noted supra, the specification does not
`
`describe the gesture-processing logic as being responsible for receiving data. Moreover, the
`
`applicant chose to add the “gesture-processing” modifier after introducing the more general
`
`“logic” earlier in the claim, which suggests the earlier-recited “logic” is different. Based on the
`
`claim language and specification, a skilled artisan would understand that “the logic” of column 22,
`
`lines 46–47 includes, but is not limited to, “the gesture-processing logic.”
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 81 Filed 01/04/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1746
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`Term or Phrase
`
`The Court’s Construction
`
`“A single integrated circuit comprising:”
`(Claim 13)
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`
`“plurality of gesture-interpretation-state
`modules” (Claims 2, 3, and 6)
`
`“two or more state modules for interpreting the
`time series of data to recognize gestures”
`
`being
`logic
`position-processing
`“the
`accommodated in, and running on, a first
`integrated circuit and the gesture-processing
`logic being accommodated in, and running
`on, one or more separate integrated circuits”
`(Claim 11)
`
`“the position-processing logic residing in, and
`running on, a first integrated circuit and the
`gesture-processing logic residing in, and running
`on, one or more separate integrated circuits”
`
`“the gesture-processing logic” (Claim 13)
`
`Not indefinite.
`
`The Court ORDERS each party not to 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 Order, other than the actual definitions adopted
`
`by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim construction proceedings is limited
`
`to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court.
`
`13
`
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of January, 2022.
`
`