Asetek Holdings, Inc et al v. Cooler Master Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 35

ORDER Re Claim Construction for Asetek's Patents. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/3/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ASETEK HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

AND
No. C-13-0457 JST

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-4498 EMC

COOLIT SYSTEMS INC.,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
FOR ASETEK’S PATENTS

13
ASETEK HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
COOLER MASTER CO., LTD., et al.,
17
18

Defendants.
___________________________________/

19
20

Asetek is the owner of two patents: the ‘362 patent and the ‘764 patent. In this Court’s case,

21

Asetek has accused CoolIT of infringing the patents in suit. In Judge Tigar’s case (No. C-13-0457

22

JST), Asetek has accused Cooler Master of infringing the patents in suit. This order addresses claim

23

construction for the ‘362 and ‘764 patents in both the instant case as well as Judge Tigar’s case.1 A

24

separate order shall provide claim construction on CoolIT’s patent (the ‘456 patent).

25
26
27
28

1

cases.

The parties in both cases agreed to have this Court address claim construction for both

1

I.

2

LEGAL STANDARD

Claim construction is a question of law to be determined by the Court. See Markman v.

3

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“hold[ing] that in a case tried to a

4

jury, the court has the power and obligation to construe as a matter of law the meaning of language

5

used in the patent claim”). “The purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and

6

scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.’” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation

7

Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

8

Words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning, which is the meaning a term would have to a person of
ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the time
of the invention. “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim
language . . . 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.”
However, in many cases, the meaning of a claim term as understood
by persons of skill in the art is not readily apparent.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Id.

14

Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill
in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because patentees
frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the 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.” 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.”

15
16
17
18
19

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As a general matter, extrinsic

20

evidence such as dictionaries and expert testimony is considered less reliable than intrinsic evidence

21

(i.e., the patent and its prosecution history). See id. at 1317-19 (noting that “extrinsic evidence may

22

be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope

23

unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence”).

24

II.

25

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS

As noted above, the two Asetek patents in suit are the ‘362 patent and the ‘764 patent.

26

Although the two patents are not directly related, the parties have agreed that “certain similar claim

27

terms in the two patents should be construed to have the same meaning.” Docket No. 127 (Mot. at

28

3).

2

1

Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘362 patent and claim 1 of the ‘764 patent are representative claims.

2

The text of those claims is provided below (with terms to be construed in bold).

3

A.

4

Claim 1 of the ‘363 Patent
1. A cooling system for a computer system processing unit,
comprising:

5
an integrated element including a heat exchanging interface, a
reservoir, and a pump, wherein

6
7

the reservoir is configured to receive a cooling liquid
from outside the reservoir through an inlet and pass the cooling liquid
to the outside through an outlet, the reservoir including an upper
chamber and a lower chamber, the upper chamber and the lower
chamber being vertically displaced chambers that are separated from
each other by at least a horizontal wall and fluidly coupled together
by a plurality of substantially circular passages, at least one of the
plurality of substantially circular passages being positioned on the
horizontal wall, a boundary wall of the lower chamber being formed
by the heat exchanging interface;

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
the heat exchanging interface is adapted to provide
separable thermal contact between the processing unit and the cooling
liquid such that the heat is dissipated from the processing unit to the
cooling liquid as the cooling liquid passes through the lower chamber
of the reservoir; and

13
14
15

the pump is adapted to direct the cooling liquid through
the upper chamber and the lower chamber of the reservoir, the pump
including a motor having a rotor, a stator and an impeller having a
plurality of curved blades, the impeller being positioned within the
reservoir;

16
17
18

a heat radiator spaced apart from the integrated element, the
heat radiator being fluidly coupled to the outlet and inlet of the
reservoir, the heat radiator being configured to circulate the cooling
liquid therethrough and exhaust heat from the cooling liquid; and

19
20
21

a fan configured to direct air through the heat radiator, the fan
being driven by a motor separate from the motor of the pump.

22
23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

3

1

B.

2

Claim 14 of the ‘362 Patent
14. A cooling system for a processing unit positioned on a
motherboard of a computer, comprising:

3
a reservoir configured to be coupled to the processing unit
positioned on the motherboard at a first location, the reservoir being
adapted to pass a cooling liquid therethrough, wherein the reservoir
includes an upper chamber and a lower chamber, the upper chamber
and the lower chamber being separate chambers containing cooling
liquid that are separated by at least a horizontal wall and fluidly
coupled together by one or more passageways, at least one of the one
or more passageways being a substantially circular passageway
positioned on the horizontal wall, the reservoir further including a heat
exchanging interface configured to be placed in separable thermal
contact with the processing unit, the heat exchanging interface being
removably attached to the reservoir such that the heat exchanging
interface forms a boundary wall of the lower chamber of the reservoir;

4
5
6
7
8
9

a heat radiator configured to be positioned at a second location
horizontally spaced apart from the first location when the reservoir
is coupled to the processing unit;

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
a fan adapted to direct air to the heat radiator to dissipate heat
from the cooling liquid to surrounding atmosphere;

13
14

a pump configured to circulate the cooling liquid between the
reservoir and the heat radiator, the pump including a motor having a
rotor, a stator, and an impeller having curved blades, the impeller
being mechanically coupled to the rotor and at least partially
submerged in the cooling liquid in the reservoir, wherein a speed of
the impeller is configured to be varied independent of the speed of the
fan.

15
16
17
18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

4

1

C.

2

Claim 1 of the ‘764 Patent
1. A cooling system for a heat-generating component,
comprising:

3
a double-sided chassis adapted to mount a pump configured to
circulate a cooling liquid, the pump comprising a stator and an
impeller, the impeller being positioned on the underside of the chassis
and the stator being positioned on the upper side of the chassis and
isolated from the cooling liquid;

4
5
6

a reservoir adapted to pass the cooling liquid therethrough, the
reservoir including:

7
8

a pump chamber including the impeller and formed
below the chassis, the pump chamber being defined by at least an
impeller cover having one or more passages for the cooling liquid to
pass through;

9

a thermal exchange chamber formed below the pump
chamber and vertically spaced apart from the pump chamber, the
pump chamber and the thermal exchange chamber being separate
chambers that are fluidly coupled together by the one or more
passages; and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

a heat-exchanging interface, the heat-exchanging
interface forming a boundary wall of the thermal exchange chamber,
and configured to be placed in thermal contact with a surface of the
heat-generating component; and

14
15
16

a heat radiator fluidly coupled to the reservoir and configured
to dissipate heat from the cooling liquid.

17
18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

5

1
2
3
4

III.
A.

“reservoir”

Asetek

CoolIT

Cooler Master

Court

a single receptacle

region of the
integrated element not
in normal fluid flow
and available to
accommodate fluid
expansion;

the portions of the
integrated element
through which cooling
liquid flows when the
cooling system is
operating

a receptacle or
chamber for holding a
liquid or fluid

5
6
7

or, alternatively,

8

fluid containing
portion of the device
that includes a region
not in the normal fluid
flow and available to
accommodate fluid
expansion

9
10
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

DISCUSSION

12
13

1.

14

CoolIT and Cooler Master’s constructions are problematic to the extent both incorporate the

“integrated element”

15

term “integrated element” (i.e., a reservoir is part of an integrated element). As Asetek points out,

16

the term “integrated element” (1) is not used in any of the claims of the ‘764 patent and (2) shows up

17

only in claim 1, and claims dependent on claim 1, in the ‘362 patent. See ‘362 patent, claim 1

18

(describing “[a] cooling system for a computer system processing unit, comprising: an integrated

19

element including a heat exchanging interface, a reservoir, and a pump”). Thus, while a reservoir

20

can be a part of an integrated element, it need not be. When it is, the claim language so provides.

21

Furthermore, the term “integrated element” is itself a confusing term and therefore a

22

construction incorporating that term would not be helpful to the jury. In this regard, the Court takes

23

note that “integrated element” does not necessarily mean that the reservoir, pump, and heat

24

exchanging interface must all be part of a single component. For example, the ‘362 and ‘764 patents

25

make note that

26
27
28

[t]he pump may not only be a self-contained pumping device, but may
be made integrated into the reservoir, thus making the reservoir and
pumping device one single integrated component. This single
integrated element of the reservoir and the pumping device may also

6

1

be integrated, thus making the reservoir, the pumping device and the
heating exchanging surface one single integrated unit.

2
3

‘362 patent, col. 10:52-59 (emphasis added); ‘764 patent, col. 13:18-25 (stating the same); see also

4

‘362 patent, col. 2:25-35 (stating that, in the preferred embodiment, “the pump is placed inside the

5

reservoir” and that “[i]n an alternative embodiment the pump is placed outside the reservoir in the

6

immediate vicinity of the reservoir” – with both placements making “the element . . . easy to employ

7

in new and existing computer systems”); 764 patent, col. 2:20-31 (making a similar point).

8

2.

9

CoolIT’s construction is also problematic to the extent it offers a limitation – i.e., “not in

“not in normal fluid flow and available to accommodate fluid expansion”

normal fluid flow and available to accommodate fluid expansion” – that is not justified by the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

intrinsic evidence. CoolIT argues that the limitation is appropriate based on the following excerpt

12

from the specification:

13
14
15
16
17

FIG. 3 shows another embodiment of a prior art cooling
system. The figure shows the typical components in a liquid-cooling
type CPU cooling arrangement. The figure shows a prior art heat
exchanger 7, which is in connection with a prior art liquid reservoir 8,
a prior art liquid pump 9 and a heat radiator 11 and an air fan 10
provided together with the heat radiator. . . . The reservoir serves as a
storage unit for excess liquid not capable of being contained in the
remaining components. The reservoir is also intended as a means for
venting the system of any air entrapped in the system and as a means
for filling the system with liquid.

18
19
20

‘362 patent, col. 8:5-17; ‘764 patent, col. 10:37-49 (emphasis added).
But this position is fundamentally flawed because the statement above concerns the prior art,

21

and not the present invention. See Docket No. 148 (Reply at 4). Indeed, the statement above

22

specifically refers to a “prior art liquid reservoir” (emphasis added). That there is a difference

23

between (1) a prior art reservoir and (2) a reservoir that is part of the invention claimed is

24

underscored by the fact that a prior art reservoir was used, in part, as a means for venting the system

25

of any air entrapped in the system. But a reservoir that is part of the invention claimed does not

26

serve that purpose as it is part of a closed/sealed system.

27
28

Furthermore, CoolIT’s position runs counter to the language used in the patent claims. The
claims in both the ‘362 patent and ‘764 patent indicate that the reservoir is an integral part of fluid

7

1

flow for cooling. See, e.g., ‘362 patent, claim 1 (providing that “the reservoir is configured to

2

receive a cooling liquid from outside the reservoir through an inlet and pass the cooling liquid to the

3

outside through an outlet”); ‘362 patent, claim 14 (providing that the reservoir is “adapted to pass a

4

cooling liquid therethrough”); ‘764 patent, claim 1 (providing that “a reservoir [is] adapted to pass

5

the cooling liquid therethrough”). Nothing about the patents suggests that there is a portion of the

6

reservoir that is not involved in the fluid flow.

7

Finally, CoolIT’s suggestion that the construction of “reservoir’ should include a reference to

8

“excess fluid created by fluid expansion” is completely unwarranted. Nothing in the patents makes

9

mention of fluid expansion at all. Docket No. 136 (CoolIT’s Resp. Br. at 7). Rather, that is one of
the issues that is the subject of CoolIT’s own invention, the ‘456 patent, not Asetek’s patents.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

3.

12

As for the limitation proposed by Cooler Master – i.e., “through which cooling liquid flows

13

when the cooling system is operating” – the Court finds it unnecessary as it is largely redundant of

14

the surrounding claim language. Cf. Atser Research Techs., Inc. v. Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc.,

15

No. SA-07-CA-93-H, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25294, at *31-32 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2009) (rejecting

16

defendant’s construction of the term “client computer” because it “includ[ed] the surrounding words

17

of the claim” which was “redundant and unnecessary”).

“through which cooling liquid flows when the cooling system is operating”

18

4.

19

Finally, Asetek’s construction – i.e., “single receptacle” – is lacking in that it does not

“single receptacle”

20

provide any information as to what the function or purpose of a reservoir is. To the extent Asetek

21

puts a premium on the word “single,” that word is unnecessary because the fact that the claim term

22

is “reservoir” (singular) and not “reservoirs” (plural) indicates that a reservoir is only one receptacle

23

and not many. Also, it is clear from the surrounding claim language that a reservoir is a single

24

receptacle made up of an upper and lower chamber (the ‘362 patent) or a pump chamber and a

25

thermal exchange chamber (the ‘764 patent).

26

5.

27

Although a dictionary definition is extrinsic evidence, the Court concludes that it best

28

captures what a “reservoir” is based on the language of the patents, including the specifications and

Dictionary Definition

8

1

claims. That is, a “reservoir” for purposes of the ‘362 and ‘764 patents is “a receptacle or chamber

2

for holding a liquid or fluid.” Notably, CoolIT expressly stated at the hearing that it would not

3

object to this construction, which is a dictionary definition supplied by CoolIT in its papers. See

4

Docket No. 136-4 (Ex. 4). In addition, in its papers, Asetek itself relied on a similar dictionary

5

definition. See Docket No. 10 (Asetek’s Op. Br. at 10) (“The dictionary definition of ‘reservoir’

6

provided by Asetek is ‘a part of an apparatus in which a liquid is held.’”).

7

B.

8

Asetek

10

For the Northern District of California

11

CoolIT

Cooler Master

Court

fluidly
communicating
(directly or indirectly)

9

United States District Court

“fluidly coupled” (‘362 patent) or “coupled” (‘764 patent)

connected such that
fluid can flow directly
from one element into
the other

[same as CoolIT]

fluidly connected

12

The parties agree that the term “fluidly coupled” or “coupled” does not appear anywhere in

13

the specifications of the two patents at issue – i.e., the term shows up only in the claims. As to the

14

claims, the term “fluidly coupled” or “coupled” basically shows up in two different contexts:

15

•

The fluid coupling of the two chambers in the reservoir; and

16

•

The fluid coupling of the reservoir to the heat radiator (i.e., fan).

17

See, e.g., ‘362 patent, claim 1 (describing “the reservoir including an upper chamber and a lower

18

chamber, the upper chamber and the lower chamber being vertically displaced chambers that are

19

separated from each other by at least a horizontal wall and fluidly coupled together by a plurality of

20

substantially circular passages”); ‘362 patent, claim 1 (describing “a heat radiator spaced apart from

21

the integrated element, the heat radiator being fluidly coupled to the outlet and inlet of the

22

reservoir”); ‘764 patent, claim 1 (describing “the pump chamber and the thermal exchange chamber

23

being separate chambers that are fluidly coupled together by the one or more passages”); ‘764

24

patent, claim 1 (describing “a heat radiator fluidly coupled to the reservoir”).

25

The basic dispute between the parties is whether “coupled” should be construed to require a

26

direct connection (Defendants’ position) whether “coupled” should be more broadly construed to

27

cover either a direct or an indirect connection (Asetek’s position).

28

9

1

Looking at the phrase “coupled” in isolation, the Court agrees with Asetek that “common

2

usage of the term . . . supports both direct and indirect connections.” Silicon Image, Inc. v. Genesis

3

Microchip, Inc., No. 3:01cv266, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28916, at *88 (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2002).

4

Furthermore, the fact that the specifications of the patents show only direct connections is not

5

dispositive. “[E]ven where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be read

6

restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using

7

words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water

8

Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis

9

added); see also Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (noting
that “[t]he record is devoid of ‘clear statements of scope’ limiting the term appearing in claim 1 to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

having ‘a single pair of legs’”)

12

The case cited by Cooler Master – In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir.

13

2012) – is not to the contrary. There, the court held that the PTO erred in broadly construing the

14

claim “electrochemical sensor” to include sensors with external wires and cable leads because (1)

15

“every embodiment disclosed in the specification shows an electrochemical sensor without external

16

cables or wires” and (2) “the specification contains only disparaging remarks with respect to the

17

external cables and wires of the prior-art sensors.” Id. at 1149. No such disparagement of indirect

18

coupling is contained in the specification at issue in the case at bar.

19
20
21

Thus, in principle, the Court concludes that the term “coupled” – in isolation – could support
either direct or indirect connections.
That being said, the term “coupled” as used in the patents is not in isolation but is usually

22

accompanied by a phrase specifying the means of the connection. For example, claim 1 of the ‘362

23

patent describes “the reservoir including an upper chamber and a lower chamber, the upper chamber

24

and the lower chamber being vertically displaced chambers that are separated from each other by at

25

least a horizontal wall and fluidly coupled together by a plurality of substantially circular

26

passages.” ‘362 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). Where the means of connection are specified,

27

the Court concludes that that is the exclusive means by which the coupling can be accomplished.

28

Thus, for claim 1 of the ‘362 patent, the chambers must only be connected by a plurality of

10

1

substantially circular passages and nothing more. The heat radiator, for example, could not be

2

inserted as a part of the connection without violating the language of the claim. See Docket No. 136

3

(CoolIT’s Resp. Br. at 12) (“Asetek amended its infringement contentions to argue that the two

4

separate chambers could be ‘coupled’ – indirectly – through the outlet tube, the radiator, and the

5

inlet tube.”)2 (emphasis added).

6

Notably, the court in City of Aurora v. PS Systems, Inc., No. 07-cv-2371-PAB-BNB, 2010

7

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61935 (D. Colo. June 2, 2010), reached a similar conclusion when presented with

8

a similar set for facts. In Aurora, the court examined, inter alia, a claim that specified that the

9

patented system included “‘at least one aquifer well coupled to the underground reservoir by
piping.’” Id. at *41. The court took note that

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

[t]he parties first disagree about the implications of the term
“coupled.” The City of Aurora insists that, in the context of this
patent, the term “couple” signifies a direct connection between the
aquifer well and the underground water storage reservoir. Defendant
patentees, citing to a District of Delaware case, urge that the
connection may be direct or indirect and, in fact, may be so indirect as
to encompass infiltration ditches and ponds above the underground
reservoir [e.g., an infiltration pond could establish the necessary link
between the aquifer well and the reservoir].

12
13
14
15
16

Id. at *41-42. The court ultimately found in the city’s favor rather than the defendant-patentees’,

17

explaining as follows:

18

There are two cases, of which the Court is aware, which define
the term “coupled.” The case cited by defendants, Silicon Graphics,
Inc. [v. nVidia Corp.], held that “the ordinary meaning [of couple] in
this context is ‘coupled or connected, directly or indirectly.’” 58 F.
Supp. 2d at 346. In Bradford Co. v. ConTeyor North America, Inc.,
603 F.3d 1262, 2010 WL 1711307, at *3, 6-7 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the
Federal Circuit recently held that the phrase “coupled to” means
“linked together, connected or joined” and often deserves a broad
construction to include indirect means of connection.

19
20
21
22
23
2

24
25
26
27
28

To the extent Asetek relies on the Tilton declaration to assert that there could be indirect
coupling via the radiator, see Docket No. 148 (Tilton Decl. ¶ 9) (emphasis added), the Court rejects
that reliance for several reasons. First, Asetek failed to identify Dr. Tilton as a witness in the
parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. See Pat. L.R. 4-3(e) (providing that, in
the parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, they are to include information as to
“[w]hether any party proposes to call one or more witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing, the
identity of each such witness, and for each witness, a summary of his or her testimony, including for
any expert, each opinion to be offered related to claim construction”). Second, Dr. Tilton’s opinion
is directly contrary to the language of the claims which mentions coupling via passages only, and
nothing more.

11

1

The distinction between a direct and an indirect connection,
which was the focus in Bradford and Silicon Graphics, Inc., is not
particularly helpful in the present case. Both of those cases dealt with
the question of whether two items would qualify as “coupled” if they
were indirectly joined through a third, intermediary structure. See
Bradford Co., 603 F.3d 1262, 2010 WL 1711307, at *7; Silicon
Graphics, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 331, 345-46. Unlike the patents in
Bradford or Silicon Graphics, Claim 1 of the ‘218 Patent identifies the
specific means by which the two primary items – here, the aquifer and
the underground reservoir – are to be coupled. Claim 1 explains that
they are coupled “by piping.” The specification makes clear that
“piping” includes the entire mechanical system of wells, wellheads,
pumps, pump houses, valves, and pipe configurations. Additional
intermediary steps or diversions may well be contemplated under
Claim 1. However, one skilled in the art would not understand
“piping,” as the term is used in the ‘218 Patent, to include infiltration
ponds or infiltration ditches. Therefore, such infiltration structures
may not serve as the element which connects the underground
reservoir.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Id. at *42-43 (emphasis added).

12

Because “coupled” in isolation could support indirect connections but “coupled” as used in

13

the patents often specifies the means for connection, the Court concludes that a construction

14

incorporating terms such as “direct” or “indirect” would not be helpful to the jury. Accordingly, the

15

Court shall simply construe “fluidly coupled” to mean “fluidly connected.” The parties, however,

16

should be mindful of the Court’s ruling here that, where a means of coupling is specified, that is the

17

exclusive means of connection.

18

C.

19
20
21
22
23

“substantially circular passages”

Asetek

CoolIT

Cooler Master

Court

generally circular
passages

indefinite and lacks
written description;

indefinite and lacks
written description;

plain and ordinary
meaning

or

or

circular passages

circular holes

24
25

As indicated by the chart above, both CoolIT and Cooler Master make an initial challenge to

26

the term “substantially circular passages” on the ground that it is indefinite and lacks written

27

description. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)-(b) (providing that “[t]he specification shall contain a written

28

description of the invention” and that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims

12

1

particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint

2

inventor regards as the invention”).

3

The Court, however, shall not entertain invalidity arguments at this juncture of the

4

proceedings. Invalidity defenses are usually addressed at summary judgment, not as a part of claim

5

construction. See, e.g., PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir.

6

2008) (stating that “[c]ompliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact [that]

7

is amenable to summary judgment in cases where no reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for

8

the nonmoving party”); ASM America, Inc. v. Genus, Inc., No. C-01-2190 EDL, 2002 U.S. Dist.

9

LEXIS 15348, at *42 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2002) (“conclud[ing] that the Federal Circuit’s statements
that indefiniteness is intertwined with claim construction mean only that the Court must attempt to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

determine what a claim means before it can determine whether the claim is invalid for

12

indefiniteness, and not that the Court must determine indefiniteness during the claim construction

13

proceedings”).3 This approach is particularly warranted given that Judge Tigar is the assigned judge

14

for the Cooler Master case.

15

The Court therefore restricts itself to the issue of claim construction. Here, Asetek asks that

16

the term “substantially circular passages” be construed as “generally circular passages,” while

17

CoolIT proposes “circular passages” and Cooler Master “circular holes.”

18

The Court agrees with Asetek that both of Defendants’ constructions are problematic

19

because they effectively “read the word ‘substantially’ out of the claim.” Docket No. 127 (Asetek’s

20

Op. Br. at 18). Cooler Master protests that it “does not contend that the required circle needs to be

21

proven geometrically to be perfect to meet the claim limitation, but rather it must look circular to

22

one of ordinary skill in the art.” Docket No. 137 (Cooler Master’s Resp. Br. at 17). However,

23

Cooler Master’s proposed construction of the term does not make this point clear in any way.

24

Similarly, to the extent CoolIT argues that “[t]he claims require passages that are shaped like a

25

circle, as opposed to some other geometric shape such as a square, rectangle, or triangle,” Docket

26
3

27
28

Cf. 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(stating that, “[i]n order to be indefinite, reasonable efforts at claim construction must result in a
definition that does not provide sufficient particularity or clarity to inform a skilled artisan of the
bounds of the claim”) (emphasis added).

13

1

No. 136 (CoolIT’s Resp. Br. at 12) (emphasis added), its proposed construction does not suggest this

2

point in any fashion.

3

The Court also rejects Cooler Master’s suggestion that “passages” should be construed to

4

mean “holes.” According to Cooler Master “holes” is more readily understandable than “passages,”

5

see Docket No. 137 (Resp. Br. at 17), but the term “passages” is not a confusing term. Moreover,

6

the connotation of the two words is somewhat different, and nothing in the patents suggests that

7

“passages” and “holes” are equivalent. Because nothing in the patents indicates that “passages”

8

suggests that it should be interpreted other than in its plain and ordinary meaning, the Court shall not

9

construe the term any further.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Likewise, the Court need not construe the term “substantially” any further.
D.

“vertically displaced chambers” (‘362 patent) or “vertically spaced apart (‘764 patent)”

Asetek

CoolIT

Cooler Master

Court

vertically arranged
(with reference to
each other and the
heat exchanging
interface) chambers

indefinite and lacks
written description;

indefinite and lacks
written description;

or

or

vertically arranged
(with reference to
each other and the
heat exchanging
interface) chambers

the upper chamber is
farther away from the
heat exchanging
interface and
separated from the
lower chamber by at
least a horizontal wall

the upper
chamber/pump
chamber being farther
away from the heat
exchanging interface,
and separated from
the lower
chamber/heat
exchanging chamber
by at least a
horizontal/intermediat
e wall

As above, the Court shall not entertain the invalidity arguments presented by Defendants.
Turning to construction, the Court finds both CoolIT and Cooler Master’s constructions
problematic because they, in effect, read out the “vertical” requirement. As Asetek argues,
“defining a distance alone [i.e., farther away] does not clarify spatial orientation.” Docket No. 148
(Reply at 20); see also Docket No. 127 (Asetek’s Op. Br. at 22) (stating that “merely stating the
upper/pump chamber is ‘farther away from the heat exchanging interface’ does not provide the

28

14

1

directional orientation that would assist a jury in understanding ‘vertically’ in the claims”). To the

2

extent CoolIT and Cooler Master’s concern is that Asetek is trying to avoid a construction that puts

3

the lower/thermal exchange chamber closer to the heat exchanging interface, that concern is

4

unwarranted. Asetek does not dispute that that has to be the case. See Docket No. 148 (Reply at 19-

5

20) (arguing that it “has never taken the position” that the two chambers could be transposed; also

6

stating that the lower/thermal exchange chamber “contains the heat exchange interface”). In any

7

event, the claims on their face demand such. See, e.g., ‘362 patent, claim 1 (referring to “a boundary

8

wall of the lower chamber being formed by the heat exchanging interface”)

9

Finally, CoolIT and Cooler Master’s constructions which make reference to a separation by a
horizontal or intermediate wall are not appropriate because, as Asetek notes, (1) for the ‘362 patent,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

such language is “redundant of other claim language, which already states the upper and the lower

12

chambers are ‘separated . . . by at least a horizontal wall.’” Docket No. 127 (Asetek’s Op. Br. at 22)

13

(quoting claim 1); and (2) for the ‘764 patent, there is no such limitation in the patent at all – i.e.,

14

there is only a requirement that the chambers be separate. See, e.g., ‘764 patent, claim 1 (making no

15

reference to a horizontal or intermediate wall).

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Accordingly, the Court adopts Asetek’s construction as the more appropriate construction.
E.

“horizontally spaced apart”

Asetek

CoolIT

Cooler Master

Court

spaced apart in the
horizontal direction
(with reference to the
vertically
displaced/spaced apart
chambers)

plain ordinary
meaning

indefinite and lacks
written description;

spaced apart in the
horizontal direction
(with reference to the
vertically
displaced/spaced apart
chambers)

or
being placed at
different locations on
a horizontal plane

24

As above, the Court shall not entertain the invalidity arguments presented by Defendants.

25

Turning to construction, the Court takes note that the main dispute here is really between

26

Asetek and Cooler Master. That dispute boils down to whether “horizontal” means exactly

27

horizontal (i.e., on the same horizontal plane). Cooler Master takes this position, while Asetek

28

maintains that horizontal could also mean, in effect, “roughly” horizontal. The “horizontal”

15

1

relationship at issue is that between the “reservoir . . . at a first location” and “a heat radiator . . . at a

2

second location.” ‘764 patent, claim 14 (referring to a “heat radiator configured to be positioned at a

3

second location horizontally spaced apart from the first location”).

4

Cooler Master’s position is dependent on the premise that both the reservoir and radiator are

5

located on the motherboard – i.e., Cooler Master asserts that, because the motherboard is a board

6

and because both the reservoir and radiator must be on the motherboard, the reservoir and radiator

7

must be exactly horizontal from one another. See Docket No. 137 (Cooler Master’s Resp. Br. at 18).

8
9

The problem for Cooler Master is that there is limited support for its contention that the
radiator must be on the motherboard. For example, although Cooler Master takes the position that
the language of claim 14 of the ‘362 patent supports its position, the Court does not agree. Claim 14

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

of the ‘362 patent provides in relevant part as follows:

12

14. A cooling system for a processing unit positioned on a
motherboard of a computer, comprising:

13
14
15

a reservoir configured to be coupled to the processing unit
positioned on the motherboard at a first location . . .

16

a heat radiator configured to be positioned at a second location
horizontally spaced apart from the first location when the reservoir is
coupled to the processing unit . . . .

17

In its papers, Cooler Master argues that “[t]he use of ‘second’ as the modifier in relation to the ‘first’

18

location on the motherboard compels a conclusion that the second location must also be on the

19

motherboard.” Docket No. 137 (Cooler Master’s Resp. Br. at 18). But Cooler Master has not read

20

the text of claim 14 correctly. Claim 14 does not refer to a CPU (central processing unit) positioned

21

at a “first location on the motherboard.” Rather, claim 14 describes a CPU positioned “on the

22

motherboard at a first location.” Thus, claim 14 simply reflects that the motherboard is at a first

23

location, not that there is a first and second location on the motherboard. Thus, consistent with the

24

claim language, the radiator could be at a second location apart from the motherboard.

25
26
27
28

In addition, FIG. 8 of the ‘362 patent suggests that the radiator does not have to be on the
same exact horizontal plane as the reservoir. See ‘362 patent, FIG. 8.
Cooler Master’s best argument is based on the prosecution history, but even here there are
problems. In its responsive brief, Cooler Master points out that,

16

1
2
3
4
5

[i]n the March 21, 2012 Reply to Office action, the [patent] applicant
amended claims 83 and 86 (which were later issued as claims 14 and
17 of the ‘362 patent) in order to overcome the examiner’s rejection.
In the response, the inventor explained that “amended independent
claim 83 recites a cooling system for a processing unit positioned on a
motherboard of a computer, including a reservoir configured to be
coupled to the processing unit positioned on the motherboard at a first
location, . . . , and a heat radiator configured to be positioned at a
second location of the motherboard horizontally spaced apart from the
first location when the reservoir is coupled to the processing unit.”

6
7

Docket No. 137 (Cooler Master’s Resp. Br. at 19) (emphasis in original); see also Docket No. 137-7

8

(Carman Decl., Ex. E) (Reply to Office Action at 5-7, 12-13).

demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the

11
For the Northern District of California

While “‘the prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by

10

United States District Court

9

invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise

12

be,’” Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009), here, the added language

13

regarding a second location of the motherboard was deleted before issuance of the patent (a point

14

that no party contests). Admittedly, there is nothing in the record as to why this language was

15

deleted. However, as a matter of common sense, the deletion seems unremarkable – i.e., while the

16

CPU must be on the motherboard (and thus the reservoir/heat exchanging interface which are

17

attached to the CPU), there is no obvious or apparent functional need for the heat radiator to be on

18

the motherboard as well. Indeed, because the heat radiator and its fan must exhaust heat from within

19

a chassis to the outside, it would make little sense to require the radiator and fan to be placed on the

20

motherboard rather than mounted, e.g., on the chassis wall. In any event, the lack of any reason for

21

the deletion simply makes the prosecution history ambiguous at best. The Federal Circuit has

22

expressly held that “[i]t is inappropriate to limit a broad definition of a claim term based on

23

prosecution history that is itself ambiguous.” Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH v. Warner

24

Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Harris Corp. v. Federal Express Corp.,

25

502 Fed. Appx. 957, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (stating that, “[a]s a general rule, prosecution history

26

cannot overcome the natural reading of the claim when the alleged disavowal is ambiguous”);

27

SunRace Roots Enter. Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating that,

28

“‘[a]lthough [it] is correct that the prosecution history is always relevant to claim construction, it is

17

1

also true that the prosecution history may not be used to infer the intentional narrowing of a claim

2

absent the applicant’s clear disavowal of claim coverage’”).

3

Accordingly, the Court adopts the construction proposed by Asetek, and not Cooler Master.

4

The Court declines to rest on plain and ordinary meaning as proposed by CoolIT as here there is

5

ambiguity as to whether “horizontal” means exactly horizontal.

6
7

IV.

CONCLUSION

The disputed claim terms of the patents-in-suit are hereby construed as set forth above.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: December 3, 2013

12

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18