Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 86

Declaration of Derek C. Walter in Support Apple's of Opening Claim Construction Brief re 85 filed by Apple, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V) (Powers, Matthew) (Filed on 5/7/2010) Modified on 5/10/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT H

No. 2008-1310 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
SYNAPTICS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant,

and AVERATEC, INC., and PROSTAR COMPUTER, INC.,
Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN CASE No. 06-CV-1839, JUDGE CHARLES R. BREYER BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION OF COUNSEL: THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN TROY D. CAHILL AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP Robert S. Strauss Building 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone]

SEAN P. DEBRUINE Principal Attorney ALSTON & BIRD LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 EI Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] Attorneys f o r Plaintiff-Appellee Elantech D e v i c e s Corporation

ELN042495

UNITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Elantech Devices Corp. No.
2008-1310

AMENDED

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for t h e (petitioner) ( a p p e l l a n t ) (respondent) (appellee) (amicus) ( n a m e o f party) Elantech Devices Corp i f necessary): c e r t i f i e s t h e following (use " N o n e " i f a p p l i c a b l e ; use e x t r a s h e e t s

1.

T h e full n a m e o f e v e r y party o r amicus represented by m e is:

E l a n t e c h D e v i c e s Corp.

2. T h e n a m e o f the real party in interest ( i f the party named in t h e caption is not the real party in interest) r e p r e s e n t e d b y m e is:

Elantech D e v i c e s Corp.

3. A l l p a r e n t c o r p o r a t i o n s a n d a n y p u b l i c l y h e l d c o m p a n i e s t h a t o w n 10 p e r c e n t o r m o r e o f the s t o c k o f the party o r a m i c u s curiae represented by me are:

Elan Investment Corp.

4. T h e n a m e s o f all l a w f i r m s a n d t h e p a r t n e r s o r a s s o c i a t e s t h a t a p p e a r e d for t h e p a r t y o r a m i c u s n o w r e p r e s e n t e d b y m e in the trial court o r agency o r are e x p e c t e d t o a p p e a r in this c o u r t are:
Thomas C. Goldstein, Troy 0 Cahill, Joanne Kim, Ming- Tao Yang (no longer with firm), Cindy Feng (No longer with firm), Clark A. Jablon (no l o n g e r w ~ firm), all o f Akin G u m p Strauss H a u e r & Feld LLP. Sean DeBruine, Yitai Hu, Ginger Liu. Elizabeth Rader. Richrd Chae, and S.H. Michael Kim all o f Alston + Bird LLP.

Signature o f counsel
S e a n P. D e B r u i n e

Printed n a m e o f counsel P l e a s e Note: All q u e s t i o n s m u s t be answered cc: _

ELN042496

TABLE O F C O N T E N T S

Page
TABLE O F A U T H O R I T I E S STATEMENT OF R E L A T E D C A S E S J U R I S D I C T I O N A L STATEMENT STATEMENT OF T H E I S S U E S A. Issues related to the district court~s grant o f summary j u d g m e n t that Synaptics' Type 2 C o d e products infringe Claim 18 ofElantech~s ~352 Patent Issue related to the district c o u r t ' s award o f a preliminary injunction against Synaptics iv 1 2 2

3 4 4 4 5 9 9 10

B.

STATEMENT OF T H E C A S E
I.

N a t u r e o f t h e appeal Relevant procedural history and disposition in the district court

II.

S T A T E M E N T O F FACTS I. The
~352

Patent

II.
III.

Claim 18
Synaptics~

Type 2 C o d e P r o d u c t s

11 11 12 14 16 16

A. B.

Type 2 C o d e i d e n t i f i e s m a x i m a a n d m i n i m a Type 2 C o d e provides an indication o f the simultaneous p r e s e n c e o f t w o fingers

S U M M A R Y OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT
I.

S y n a p t i c s d o e s n o t a p p e a l the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s C l a i m C o n s t r u c t i o n Order

ELN042497

Page
II.

T h e district court properly concluded that Synaptics' Type 2 C o d e products infringe Claim 18 A. S y n a p t i c s ' Type 2 C o d e products perform the same function as the " m e a n s for scanning" limitation o f Claim 18 1. 2. S y n a p t i c s ' Type 2 C o d e products identify maxima a n d minima

17

18 19

Synaptics is estopped from adopting a new claim position on appeal relating to the " m e a n s for scanning" element o f Claim 18 22

B.

S y n a p t i c s ' Type 2 C o d e products utilize equivalent structure to the structure linked to the "means for providing an indication" limitation o f Claim 18 1. 2. T h e ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t c l e a r l y l i n k s s t r u c t u r e to the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation T h e ' 3 5 2 Patent clearly links t h e microcontroller a n d its associated software o r firmware executing on it, including the algorithm o f Figure 9-2, to the " m e a n s for pro VI' d 'mg a n l'nd'lca t'IOn" 1 'Iml' t at'IOn S y n a p t i c s ' T y p e 2 C o d e p r o v i d e s an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e presence o f two fingers in the same manner as the ' 3 5 2 Patent

25 26

.. 32

3.

33 36

III.

The district court properly enjoined sales o f Type 2 Code Products A. B. C. S y n a p t i c s ' argument that Claim 18 is indefinite lacks substantial merit S y n a p t i c s ' argument that the ' 3 5 2 Patent is invalid due to o b v i o u s n e s s lacks substantial merit Elantech made a clear showing that Synaptics' Type 2 C o d e products infringe Claim 18

37 41 46

11

ELN042498

Page
D. E. T h e district court properly c o n c l u d e d that Elantech e s t a b l i s h e d a s h o w i n g o f i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m i f a n i n j u n c t i o n did n o t i s s u e Elantech established that the balance o f hardships a n d p u b l i c i n t e r e s t factors f a v o r E l a n t e c h 46 51 51

CONCLUSION

111

ELN042499

TABLE O F A U T H O R I T I E S Cases: Page(s)

A b b o t t Labs. v. A n d r x Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

48

A C S Hospital Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ...... 35 Allvoice Computing, P L C v. Nuance Commc 'ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) A q u a T e x Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Aristocrat Tech. Australia Pty Ltd. v . I n t ' ! Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 ( F e d . Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Chems., 773 F.2d 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1985) A t m e l Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) B e l l & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co. v. A l t e k Sys., 132 F.3d 701 ( F e d . Cir. 1 9 9 7 ) Bio-Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Christiana Indus. v. Empire Elecs., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 870 (E.D. Mich 2 0 0 6 ) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) Finisar Corp. v. D i r e c T V Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Finnigan Corp. v. I n t ' l Trade Comm 'n, 180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

29

17

30 47

39

51

50 26, 32, 38

48 47, 48 31 24

IV

ELN042500

Page(s)

H.H. Robertson Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 820 F.2d 384 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

37

Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ......... 3 6 , 4 9 , 50, 51 Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986) In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane) In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F J d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2 0 0 1 ) Key Pharms. v. Hereon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) KSR I n t ' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ----, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) Nutrition 21 v. United States, 930 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

44 38 29 31

22, 23 22, 23 41,42 46,47

Mitutoyo Corp. v. Central Purchasing, LLC, 499 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...... 17 Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Polymer Tech., Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, 237 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F. 3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
v

18

44 49

47 44 23

ELN042501

Page(s)

Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Superguide Corp. v. D i r e c t T V Enters., Inc., 358 F J d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Tate A c c e s s Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357 ( F e d . Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) Tehrani v. Hamilton Med., Inc., 331 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) WMS Gaming, Inc. v. I n t ' l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 ( F e d . Cir. 1 9 9 9 )
Statutes:
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 35 U.S.C. § 112,,-r 6

44
24

42

37 30,35

16, 1 7 , 2 4 , 2 8

41
16,17

Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( c) 17

VI

ELN042502

APPEAL NO. 2008-1310 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR T H E FEDERAL CIRCUIT

E L A N T E C H D E V I C E S CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. S Y N A P T I C S , INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,
and AVERATEC, INC., and PROSTAR COMPUTER, INC.,

Defendants.
Appeal from t h e United States District Court for the Northern District o f California No. 06-CV-1839, Judge Charles R. Breyer.

STATEMENT OF RELATED C A S E S

Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.5, Elantech states that no prior appeal in o r from t h i s civil a c t i o n w a s p r e v i o u s l y b e f o r e this o r a n y o t h e r a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . T h e underlying litigation in this matter is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District o f California and is captioned Elantech

Devices Corp. v. Synaptics, Inc. a n d Averatec, Inc., Case No. 5:06-CV-OI839 PVT.

ELN042503

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Synaptics identifies the jurisdictional basis for its appeal o f the district c o u r t ' s preliminary injunction order as being 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(l). I t appears, however, that the proper jurisdictional basis for Synaptics' appeal o f the district c o u r t ' s preliminary injunction order is 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(l). Synaptics' statement o f jurisdiction does not identify any jurisdictional basis for its purported appeal o f the district court's summary j u d g m e n t ruling. In its brief, however, Synaptics contends that the grant o f partial summary j u d g m e n t b y the district court is intertwined with the preliminary injunction ruling such that the summary j u d g m e n t ruling is within this court's pendent appellate jurisdiction. Appellant's B r i e f at 31.
STATEMENT O F T H E ISSUES

Claim 18 o f U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 (the ' ' ' 3 5 2 Patent") discloses "[a] touch sensor for detecting the operative coupling o f multiple fingers . . . . " A l 4 4 ( 1 7 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) . T h e c l a i m r e c i t e s two m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n elements: ( l ) a " m e a n s for scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, and (c) identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following said minima;" and (2) a " m e a n s for providing an indication o f the simultaneous

2

ELN042504

presence o f two fingers in response to identification o f said first and s e c o n d m a x i m a . " A 1 4 4 (17:29-37). T h e issues raised b y this appeal are as follows:

A.

Issues related to the district court's grant o f summary judgment that Synaptics' Type 2 Code products infringe Claim 18 o f E l a n t e c h ' s ' 3 5 2 Patent.

1.

Literal i n f r i n g e m e n t o f a m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n c l a i m r e q u i r e s that t h e r e l e v a n t s t r u c t u r e in t h e a c c u s e d d e v i c e p e r f o r m t h e i d e n t i c a l f u n c t i o n recited in the claim a n d b e identical o r equivalent to the c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure in the specification. The district court concluded that S y n a p t i c s ' T y p e 2 C o d e products perform t h e identical function, i.e., identify m a x i m a a n d m i n i m a , a s t h e " m e a n s f o r s c a n n i n g " e l e m e n t in t h e ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t . D i d t h e district court e r r in granting s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t in favor o f Elantech that S y n a p t i c s ' T y p e 2 C o d e p r o d u c t s s a t i s f y the " m e a n s for s c a n n i n g " e l e m e n t o f Claim l 8 ?

2.

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d that S y n a p t i c s ' T y p e 2 C o d e p r o d u c t s c o n t a i n structure that is identical o r equivalent to the structure that t h e ' 3 5 2 Patent l i n k s to t h e " m e a n s f o r p r o v i d i n g a n i n d i c a t i o n " e l e m e n t . D i d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r in granting s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t in favor o f Elantech that S y n a p t i c s ' T y p e 2 C o d e products satisfy t h e " m e a n s for providing an i n d i c a t i o n " e l e m e n t o f C l a i m 18?

3

ELN042505

B.
3.

Issue related to the district court's award o f a preliminary injunction against Synaptics.

T h e propriety o f injunctive r e l i e f t u m s on, among other factors, a showing b y t h e m o v a n t o f a r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s a n d irreparable harm. The district court concluded that Elantech had established a l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s o n the m e r i t s , t h a t S y n a p t i c s h a d n o t r a i s e d a substantial question with regard to patent validity o r infringement, and that E l a n t e c h w o u l d s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m i f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n d i d not issue. Did t h e district court abuse its discretion in granting E l a n t e c h ' s motion for preliminary injunction?
STATEMENT O F T H E C A S E

I.

N a t u r e o f t h e appeal.

Elantech Devices Corp. ("Elantech") filed suit against Synaptics, Inc. ("Synaptics") for infringement o f U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 (the " ' 3 5 2 Patent"). T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d E l a n t e c h ' s m o t i o n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n t h e n a r r o w issue o f l i t e r a l infringement o f Claim 18 o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent ("Claim 18") b y S y n a p t i c s ' a c c u s e d p r o d u c t s i m p l e m e n t i n g T y p e 2 C o d e with m u l t i p l e f i n g e r counting enabled. In addition, the district court granted E l a n t e c h ' s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Synaptics from infringing the ' 3 5 2 Patent b y importing, making, using, selling, o r offering to sell its products implementing T y p e 2 f i r m w a r e c o d e w i t h m u l t i p l e finger c o u n t i n g e n a b l e d . S y n a p t i c s n o w
4

ELN042506

appeals from the summary j u d g m e n t order in favor o f Elantech and the preliminary injunction order reasserting many o f the same arguments which were made to the d i s t r i c t c o u r t a n d w h i c h w e r e p r o p e r l y rejected.

II.

Relevant procedural history and disposition in the district court.
Claim 18, the only claim implicated in this appeal, claims: A touch sensor for detecting the operative coupling o f m u l t i p l e fingers c o m p r i s i n g : means for scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, and (c) identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a s e c o n d f i n g e r f o l l o w i n g said m i n i m a , a n d means for providing an indication o f the simultaneous presence o f two fingers in response to identification o f said first and second maxima.

A 1 4 4 (17:27-37). The parties agreed on the function and corresponding structure o f the " m e a n s f o r s c a n n i n g " e l e m e n t . A 1 2 7 6 a n d A 1 3 6 5 . T h e p a r t i e s also a g r e e d o n t h e function required by the "means for providing an indication" element. Id. Synaptics, however, claimed that the '352 Patent does not disclose a structure that corresponds to the "means for providing an indication" element. Id. According to the district c o u r t ' s Claim Construction Order, "scanning the touch sensor" is intended "to identify finger presence" and means "measuring the values generated b y a touch sensor to detect operative coupling and determining

5

ELN042507

the corresponding positions at which measurements are made." A14. With regard to o t h e r t e n n s in Claim 18, the district court concluded that: (1) the t e n n "identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger" means "identify a first peak value in a finger profile obtained from scanning the touch sensor;" (2) the t e n n "identify a minima following the first maxima" means "identify the lowest value in the finger profile that occurs after the first peak value, and before another peak value is identified;" and (3) the t e n n "identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following said minima" means " a f t e r identifying the lowest value in the finger profile, identify a second peak value in the finger profile." A 17. In reaching these constructions, the district court rejected S y n a p t i c s ' contention that maxima or minima relate only to a single precise point.
A16.

F o l l o w i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s C l a i m C o n s t r u c t i o n Order, S y n a p t i c s m o v e d for summary j u d g m e n t o f non infringement o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent. Similarly, Elantech m o v e d for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t h a t the a c c u s e d S y n a p t i c s p r o d u c t s i n f r i n g e d C l a i m 18. O n October 26, 2007, the district court issued its ruling on the cross-motions f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . B e f o r e a d d r e s s i n g the m e r i t s o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m o t i o n s , t h e district court first considered Synaptics' argument that the limitations construed b y t h e district c o u r t ' s Claim Construction O r d e r "require[d] identification o f ' s p e c i f i c ' o r ' p a r t i c u l a r ' measured capacitance values" corresponding to maxima and

6

ELN042508

mInIma. A22. Because the construction espoused by Synaptics would i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y l i m i t t h e s c o p e o f t h e claim, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t " [ t ] h e construed claims require identification o f peak and lowest values, corresponding to m a x i m a and minima, respectively. This step is satisfied by methodology that scans the finger profile to identify traces that contain the peak and lowest values." A23. T h e district court also considered Synaptics' contention that the "means for providing an indication" limitation o f Claim 18 required that the indication o f multiple fingers must b e returned to the host. A24. The district court concluded that "[t]he ' p r o v i d i n g an indication' limitation does not require that the ' i n d i c a t i o n ' o f two fingers b e returned to the host. However, the limitation does require that infringing methodology perform some affirmative step to provide an indication o f m u l t i p l e f i n g e r s . " A24. With regard to the merits o f the parties' motions for summary judgment, the district court held that Synaptics was entitled to partial summary j u d g m e n t o f noninfringement o f Claim 18. According to the district court, the accused Synaptics products implement either Type I Code o r Type 2 Code. The district court concluded that Type I Code does not literally, o r under the doctrine o f equivalents, infringe Claim 18 as a matter o f law. A29-31. With regard to Type 2 Code, the district court denied Synaptics' motion for noninfringement. A32. As for Elantech's motion for summary judgment on infringement o f Claim 18, the

7

ELN042509

district court denied the motion on a procedural ground, but indicated that, i f r e l i e f was properly requested, it would award Elantech summary j u d g m e n t on infringement o f Claim 18 for Synaptics products implementing Type 2 C o d e with m u l t i p l e f i n g e r c o u n t i n g e n a b l e d ( h e r e i n a f t e r ' T y p e 2 C o d e " ) . A32. Thereafter, Elantech s o u g h t s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t that S y n a p t i c s ' p r o d u c t s implementing Type 2 C o d e infringe Claim 18. The district court rejected S y n a p t i c s ' contention that Claim 18 was indefinite and concluded that Elantech had satisfactorily identified the structures in the ' 3 5 2 Patent and in the Synaptics products which serve as the "means for providing an indication" and the " m e a n s for scanning." A54 ("Elantech has satisfactorily identified the structures in both the written description o f the ' 3 5 2 patent and in the accused device that correspond to both means-plus-function elements o f claim 18") (emphasis added). In c o m p a r i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e s for p u r p o s e s o f i n f r i n g e m e n t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t e a c h l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e " m e a n s for s c a n n i n g " e l e m e n t a n d t h e " m e a n s for providing an indication" element were met by Synaptics' products implementing Type 2 Code. A56. Thus, the district court granted Elantech's motion for partial summary j u d g m e n t o f infringement for those products. A55-56.

In addition to granting Elantech's motion for partial summary j u d g m e n t , the
district court also preliminarily enjoined Synaptics from infringing the ' 3 5 2 Patent. A6S. According to the district court, Elantech established a likelihood o f success

8

ELN042510

on infringement and validity. A57 -61. In doing so, the district court rejected S y n a p t i c s ' arguments that it had raised a substantial question whether Claim 18 failed for indefiniteness o r whether Claim 18 was obvious. In addition, the district c o u r t c o n c l u d e d that E l a n t e c h e s t a b l i s h e d a l i k e l i h o o d o f i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m i f t h e injunction was not granted. A64. Lastly, the district court concluded that the balance o f hardships and public interest weighed in Elantech's favor. A64.
S T A T E M E N T O F FACTS
I.

T h e ' 3 5 2 Patent.
Touchpad devices, which are also commonly referred to as touch sensing

devices, take a number o f different forms. A 136 (1: 18-26) (listing various types o f touch sensing devices). O n e "touch sensing technology is capacitive sensing, in which the location o f a finger (or in some instances another object such as a stylus) o v e r a sensing device is determined by virtue o f variations in capacitance u n d e r a n d a r o u n d t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e finger." A 1 3 6 ( l : 2 7 - 3 2 ) . P r i o r to the ' 3 5 2 Patent, touchpad inventions sensed any contact as that o f o n l y o n e f i n g e r a t a time. A 1 3 6 ( l :40-41). S t u d i e s s h o w e d t h a t t h o s e p r i o r inventions were not as efficient as a mouse. A 136 (2:8-14). Thus, there was an industry need for a touchpad capable o f yielding the same productivity as a mouse. A l 3 6 (2:13-14).

9

ELN042511

The ' 3 5 2 Patent met this industry need and "provide[d] a novel m e t h o d and apparatus for sensing the proximity o f multiple simultaneous fingers o r o t h e r appropriate objects to a touch sensor." A 136 (2: 17-19). As explained in the patent, the "invention can b e described in most o f its applications b y establishing one finger as controlling movement o f the cursor, and the second finger as controlling functions equivalent to a mouse button o r switch." A 136 (2:56-60). T h e ' 3 5 2 Patent contains 31 separate claims. The only claim implicated b y this appeal is Claim 18.

II.

Claim 18.
Claim 18 is comprised o f two means-plus-function elements and states: A t o u c h s e n s o r for d e t e c t i n g t h e o p e r a t i v e c o u p l i n g o f m u l t i p l e fingers c o m p r i s i n g : means for scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first m a x i m a in a signal corresponding to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, and (c) identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a s e c o n d finger following said minima; a n d m e a n s for p r o v i d i n g an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s presence o f two fingers in response to identification o f s a i d first a n d s e c o n d m a x i m a .

A144 ( 1 7 : 2 7 - 3 7 ) .
To carry o u t the " m e a n s for scanning" element, the ' 3 5 2 Patent measures the capacitance on each trace in an X o r Y direction and examines the resulting finger profile to identify a first maximum o r peak, a minima following the peak, and a

10

ELN042512

second maxima o r peak following the minima. In other words, the two-finger p r e s e n c e m a y b e a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f i e d b y i d e n t i f y i n g two p e a k v a l u e s s e p a r a t e d b y a low point between the two peak values. A138 (6:26-38) andA121 (Fig. 3 and 4).

III.

S y n a p t i c s ' Type 2 C o d e P r o d u c t s .
S y n a p t i c s p r o d u c t s c o n t a i n o n e o f two t y p e s o f d r i v e r a n d f i r m w a r e s o f t w a r e

- Type 1 C o d e o r Type 2 C o d e - to perform functions related to multiple finger detection. A 1466 at ~ 21. Synaptics products do not contain both Type 1 C o d e and Type 2 C o d e in the same product. A2107 at ~ 7. Each product contains o n e o r the other. A2107 at ~ 7. O n l y Type 2 C o d e products are implicated in this appeal.

A.

Type 2 C o d e identifies m a x i m a a n d m i n i m a .

In operation, Synaptics' touchpads implementing Type 2 Code scan the touch sensor to identify finger touches. The scan records the digital value o f the variations in capacitance under and around the location o f the finger touch to create a finger profile. T h e profile is then scanned to identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger, identify a minima following the first maxima, a n d identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following the minima. A 1469 at ~~ 26-27. In particular, a firmware routine called oneAxis is called to count t h e number o f fingers in this data sequence. As part o f this process, t h e o n e A x i s m o d u l e calls t h e b u i l d P e a k s B i t P a t t e m r o u t i n e which i d e n t i f i e s t h e

11

ELN042513

presence o f a first maxima, intervening minima, and second maxima. A2170 at
~

18.

To make those identifications, the buildPeaksBitPattern routine examines t h e value corresponding to each capacitive trace and compares it to the value o f the neighboring capacitive trace. I f the value o f the current trace is less than that o f t h e next, t h e r o u t i n e a s s i g n s t h e c u r r e n t t r a c e a v a l u e o f " O . " I f t h e v a l u e o f t h e n e x t trace is lower than the current trace, the routine assigns the current trace a value o f " I . " When the resulting variable string (or " b i t vector") is analyzed, the maxima and minima are represented b y the stored pattern o f 1s and Os. A n y instance o f " 0 " followed b y " 1 " indicates a local maxima - e.g., the point where the finger profile begins to decrease following an increasing slope is identified b y the " 1 " in the pattern " 0 1 . " Similarly, a " 1 " followed b y a " 0 " in the bit pattern indicates a minima - e.g., a location where the finger profile ceases to decrease is identified b y the " 0 " in the pattern " 1 0 . " A2169 A2175-76 at ~ 30.
at~

16; A2170 at ~ 18; A2171-72 at ~ 23; and

B.

T y p e 2 C o d e provides a n indication o f t h e simultaneous presence o f two f i n g e r s .

In the course o f carrying out the oneAxis module, Synaptics products implementing Type 2 Code provide an indication o f the simultaneous presence o f two fingers in response to the identification o f the first maxima and second m a x i m a . W h e n t w o fingers are p r e s e n t on t h e t o u c h p a d , t h e o n e A x i s m o d u l e

12

ELN042514

provides an indication o f the presence o f those two fingers - a count o f 2 in t h e Fingerlnfo_ FingerCount##ArrayNum register. A2171 at,-r 21. In addition, Synaptics Type 2 Code always executes the buildPeaksBitPattem routine (a second time i f the oneAxis module is enabled) to identify maxima and minima and use the presence o f those maxima, o r peaks, to d e t e n n i n e the presence o f two fingers. This occurs in the PrimaryFingerTracking module. In particular, this module first calls the buildPeaksBitPattern routine w h i c h i d e n t i f i e s t w o m a x i m a a n d t h e i n t e r v e n i n g m i n i m a i f t w o fingers a r e p r e s e n t on the touchpad. The module then calls the findPeaksAboveTrackingThreshold to i d e n t i f y l e g i t i m a t e p e a k v a l u e s i n d i c a t i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f o n e o r m o r e fingers. T h e m o d u l e f i n d P e a k s A b o v e T r a c k i n g T h r e s h o l d uses the identification o f p e a k s provided to it from buildPeaksBitPattem to d e t e n n i n e how many o f the fingers are to b e considered in contact with the touchpad for tracking purposes b y comparing the values stored for the traces identified as the peaks, o r maxima, to a given t h r e s h o l d v a l u e . T h o s e p e a k v a l u e s o v e r t h e t h r e s h o l d are c o n s i d e r e d f i n g e r s , which are indicated by the v a l u e " I " stored in a bit vector. The next routine, findNearestPeak, d e t e n n i n e s which o f the traces with a " 1 " - o r finger contact - is n e a r e s t t h e last k n o w n t r a c k i n g p o s i t i o n . T h i s i n d i c a t i o n d e t e r m i n e s w h i c h o f t h e t w o fingers identified b y the maxima is to b e used as the tracking finger to control t h e cursor. A2171-72 at ~ 23.

13

ELN042515

SUMMARY OF T H E A R G U M E N T As the district court properly concluded, "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that each element o f claim 18 o f the ' 3 5 2 patent is found within Synaptics' touchpads for implementing Type 2 Code." A56 The district court also properly concluded that "considering each o f the equitable factors for a preliminary injunction, the Court finds that on balance the factors favor Elantech, especially in its p r o o f o f likelihood o f success and irreparable harm." A64 These conclusions w e r e t h e r e s u l t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f t h e record, w h i c h i n c l u d e d e x p e r t d e c l a r a t i o n s , e x p e r t d e p o s i t i o n s , t h r e e fully b r i e f e d a n d a r g u e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s a n d a fully b r i e f e d a n d a r g u e d p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n m o t i o n . In granting summary j u d g m e n t o f infringement against Synaptics, the district court concluded that Synaptics' Type 2 Code products contained an e q u i v a l e n t s t r u c t u r e t h a t p e r f o r m e d t h e identical function a s c l a i m e d i n t h e " m e a n s for scanning" limitation in Claim 18. Synaptics' arguments on appeal challenging this finding emanate from its position that its Type 2 Code does not identify and t h e n s t o r e o r p r o c e s s the p a r t i c u l a r measured c a p a c i t a n c e values o f m a x i m a a n d minima and, as a result, cannot be deemed to infringe Claim 18. Contrary to S y n a p t i c s ' c o n t e n t i o n s , the r e c o r d b e f o r e the d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o v i d e d c l e a r , indisputable evidence showing that Synaptics' Type 2 Code products identify the values generated by fingers touching the touch sensor and identify a first peak

14

ELN042516

value, a following lowest value, and a second peak value. A2169 at ~ 15 and A2171 at ~ 22. Specifically, the oneAxis module calls the buildPeaksBitPattern r o u t i n e , w h i c h a n a l y z e s finger p r o f i l e d a t a and c r e a t e s a " b i t v e c t o r . " A 2 1 6 9 a t
~

16; A2170 at ~ 18; A2171-72 at ~ 23; and A2175-76 at ~ 30. Each bit

corresponds to a particular capacitive trace in the touch sensor. Id. The resulting variable string ( o r " b i t vector") reflects the point where the finger profile begins to decrease, i.e. a maxima, and where the finger profile ceases to decrease, i.e., a minima. This, as the district court properly realized, is precisely the functionality o f t h e " m e a n s for scanning" limitation in Claim 18. T h e district court also held in granting summary j u d g m e n t that Synaptics' Type 2 C o d e products satisfy the "means for providing an indication" limitation in Claim 18. On appeal, Synaptics' primary arguments in relation to this issue relate to whether the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation is indefinite and whether the corresponding structure, i f any, is sufficient. The district court w a s correct in concluding that no reasonable finder o f fact would conclude that Synaptics satisfied its burden to prove, b y clear and convincing evidence, that t h e " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation is indefinite o r that the corresponding structure is insufficient. The written description o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent makes plain that the operation o f the touchpad is controlled b y microcontroller 60 r u n n i n g a p p r o p r i a t e f i r m w a r e . A 1 3 8 ( 5 : 4 9 - 5 1 ) ( " [ M ] i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 60, w h i c h

15

ELN042517

operates to form, a m o n g o t h e r things, a finger profile for o n e o r more fingers, X- Y c u r s o r data, a n d control signals."). In addition, the ' 3 5 2 Patent also d i s c l o s e s e x e m p l a r y f i r m w a r e e x e c u t i n g o n the m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 6 0 t h a t i n c l u d e s a s i m p l i f i e d a l g o r i t h m c a l l e d " X c o m p u t e , " w h i c h w h e n e x e c u t e d p r o v i d e s an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f two fingers b y setting the " X f i n g e r " variable to 2. A 135 (Fig. 9 - 2 at Step 980). Lastly, b e c a u s e S y n a p t i c s d i d n o t r a i s e a s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e i n d e f i n i t e n e s s o r o b v i o u s n e s s o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent, b e c a u s e E l a n t e c h h a d m a d e a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f infringement, a n d because Elantech m a d e a sufficient s h o w i n g o f i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n i n j u n c t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e its d i s c r e t i o n in g r a n t i n g E l a n t e c h ' s m o t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n .

ARGUMENT
I.

S y n a p t i c s d o e s n o t a p p e a l the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s C l a i m C o n s t r u c t i o n Order.
B e f o r e a n a l y z i n g a c l a i m to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i n f r i n g e m e n t o c c u r s , t h e

c o u r t must p r o p e r l y interpret t h e claims. C l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n is a n issue o f law, w h i c h t h i s C o u r t reviews de novo. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. I n t ' l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999). C l a i m 18 is a m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n claim a n d is, therefore, g o v e r n e d b y 35 U.S.C. § 112, ~ 6. P u r s u a n t t o 35 U.S.C. § 112, ~ 6, an i n v e n t o r m a y e x p r e s s an e l e m e n t in a c o m b i n a t i o n claim as a " m e a n s o r step for p e r f o r m i n g a s p e c i f i e d

16

ELN042518

function w i t h o u t t h e recital o f structure, material, o r acts in s u p p o r t t h e r e o f . . . . " T h e c l a i m , h o w e v e r , is " c o n s t r u e d to c o v e r t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure, material, o r acts d e s c r i b e d in t h e specification and e q u i v a l e n t s t h e r e o f . " Id. F o r p u r p o s e s o f this appeal, Synaptics d o e s not c h a l l e n g e a n y o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s findings i n the C l a i m C o n s t r u c t i o n Order. A p p e l l a n t ' s B r i e f at 9. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t S y n a p t i c s ' a r g u m e n t s o n appeal implicate s u b s e q u e n t c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n rulings b y t h e district court, t h e y a r e a d d r e s s e d w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f S y n a p t i c s ' arguments.

II.

The district court properly concluded that Synaptics' Type 2 Code products infringe Claim 18.
T h e trial c o u r t ' s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o f i n f r i n g e m e n t is r e v i e w e d d e

novo. Mitutoyo Corp. v. Central Purchasing, LLC, 4 9 9 F.3d 1284, 1289 (Fed. Cir.
2 0 0 7 ) . S u m m a r y j u d g m e n t is appropriate w h e n there is no g e n u i n e issue as to a n y material fact and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y is entitled to j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); A q u a T e x Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 4 1 9 F . 3 d 1374, 1379 ( F e d . Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) . Literal i n f r i n g e m e n t o f a means-plus-function claim limitation requires t h a t t h e r e l e v a n t s t r u c t u r e in t h e a c c u s e d d e v i c e p e r f o r m t h e i d e n t i c a l f u n c t i o n r e c i t e d in t h e c l a i m a n d b e identical o r equivalent to the c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e in t h e specification. WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1351. O n c e t h e relevant s t r u c t u r e in t h e a c c u s e d d e v i c e has b e e n identified, a p a r t y m a y p r o v e it is e q u i v a l e n t to t h e 17

ELN042519

disclosed structure by showing that the two perform the identical function in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result. O d e tics, Inc. v.
S t o r a g e Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 7 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Claim 18 o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent involves two elements written in means-plusfunction form. The first element is the "means for scanning the touch sensor" limitation and the second element is the "means for providing an indication o f the simultaneous presence o f two fingers" limitation. Because there are no genuine issues o f material fact as to whether each o f t h e elements o f Claim 18 is met by the S y n a p t i c s ' T y p e 2 C o d e p r o d u c t s , the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s a w a r d o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n infringement o f Claim 18 in favor o f Elantech should b e affirmed.

A.

S y n a p t i c s ' Type 2 C o d e p r o d u c t s p e r f o r m t h e s a m e f u n c t i o n a n d u t i l i z e e q u i v a l e n t s t r u c t u r e as t h e " m e a n s f o r s c a n n i n g " l i m i t a t i o n o f C l a i m 18.

In the Claim Construction Order, the district court construed, in relevant part, the sub-limitations (a)-(c) o f the "means for scanning" limitation in the following manner: "identify a . . . maxima . . . " to mean "identify a . . . p e a k value . . . " and "identify a minima" to mean "identify the lowest value." A17. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l a t e r c o n s i d e r e d t h e m e a n i n g o f the terms " p e a k v a l u e " a n d " l o w e s t v a l u e " a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t " t h e c l a i m s n e i t h e r m e n t i o n n o r r e q u i r e a n y sort o f operation to be performed on capacitance values," and "the claims construed

18

ELN042520

require identification o f p e a k and lowest values, corresponding to m a x i m a and minima, respectively." A23. At summary j u d g m e n t , there was no dispute before the district court regarding either the function o f o r the disclosed structure in the ' 3 5 2 Patent in relation to the " m e a n s for scanning" limitation. A l 2 7 6 and A1365. In granting s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o f i n f r i n g e m e n t against Synaptics, the district court c o n c l u d e d that the Type 2 C o d e products contained an equivalent structure that performed the identical function as claimed in the " m e a n s for scanning" limitation in Claim 18 d e t e c t i n g t w o m a x i m a w i t h a n i n t e r v e n i n g m i n i m a . T h a t finding w a s c o r r e c t a n d S y n a p t i c s ' arguments to the contrary are premised on its attempts to impose additional limitations not found in the " m e a n s for scanning" element o f Claim 18. 1. Synaptics' Type 2 Code products identify maxima and minima.

All o f S y n a p t i c s ' arguments emanate from its position that a methodology that does not identify and then store o r process particular measured capacitance values o f maxima and minima cannot be deemed to infringe Claim 18. S y n a p t i c s ' primary contention is that its Type 2 Code products do not perform t h e function o f "identify[ing] the lowest value." Appellant's B r i e f at 34. Synaptics also argues t h a t w h i l e t h e Type 2 C o d e s c a n s a n d c o m p a r e s t h e c a p a c i t a n c e o n e a c h t r a c e w i t h the capacitance on the next trace to generate a vector o f I s and Os, there is no functionality to identify t h e location o f "lowest values." Appellant's B r i e f at 35.

19

ELN042521

Similarly, Synaptics also contends that while Type 2 Code may determine maxima, it does not attempt to identify actual peak values. Appellant's B r i e f at 44. T h e s e arguments are unavailing because they do not relate to limitations o f Claim 18 as construed correctly b y the district court. Synaptics' Type 2 C o d e compares each trace to the subsequent trace to determine where capacitance values begin to increase o r decrease. In other words, Type 2 Code identifies local minima and local maxima. This, as the district court properly realized, is precisely the functionality o f the " m e a n s for scanning" limitation in Claim 18. I f the system is given the information necessary to identify a capacitance value - whether a maxima o r a minima - that value has been identified for purposes o f the " m e a n s for scanning" limitation. A23 (stating that "the construed claims require identification o f peak and lowest values, corresponding to maxima and minima, respectively"). As the district court correctly acknowledged, Claim 18 neither mentions nor requires any sort o f operation to be performed on capacitance values. A 2 3 ; s e e also A l 4 4 ( 1 7 : 2 7 - 3 7 ) . T h e record before the district court provided clear, indisputable examples showing that Synaptics' Type 2 Code products identify the values generated b y fingers touching the touch sensor and identify a first peak value, a following lowest value, and a second peak value. Specifically, Synaptics' Type 2 Code includes the p e a k- detect- subr.asm file which contains a module entitled oneAxis. A2169 at

20

ELN042522

~

15 and A2171 at ~ 22. The oneAxis module calls the buildPeaksBitPattern

r o u t i n e , w h i c h a n a l y z e s f i n g e r p r o f i l e d a t a a n d c r e a t e s a " b i t v e c t o r . " A 2 1 6 9 at
~

16; A2170 at ~ 18; A2171-72 at ~ 23; and A2175-76 at ~ 30. Each bit

corresponds to a particular capacitive trace in the touch sensor. Id. A " 0 " b i t indicates that the capacitive value o f the trace is less than the value o f the next t r a c e . l d . Similarly, a " 1 " b i t i n d i c a t e s w h e r e the c a p a c i t a n c e o f t h e c u r r e n t t r a c e is greater than that o f the next trace. Id. In the resulting variable string (or "bit vector"), any instance o f a " 0 1 " in the pattern reflects the point where the finger profile begins to decrease, i.e. a maxima, and any instance o f a " 1 0 " in the pattern reflects the point where the finger profile ceases to decrease, i.e., a minima. ld. T h e purpose o f this bit vector is to provide the touchpad with the identity o f the t r a c e s a n d t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g values. Claim 18 does not require any analysis o f the bit vector to identify the value o f capacitance o r location o f the high and low points. A144 (17:27-37). Claim 18 merely requires identifying the high and low points corresponding to maxima and minima. This is precisely what Synaptics' Type 2 Code products do. Thus, the district court properly concluded that, as a matter o f l a w , Synaptics' products with Type 2 Code, when executed, "(a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima and (c) identify a

21

ELN042523

second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger profile following said minima" and satisfy the "means for scanning" limitation o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent.

2.

Synaptics is estopped from adopting a new claim position on appeal relating to the "means for scanning" element o f Claim 18.

B e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t court, t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s e c t i o n 112, ~ 6 structure o f the "means for scanning" limitation is the "analog multiplexor 45, capacitance measuring circuit 70, analog to digital converter 80, microcontroller 60." A l 2 7 6 and A1365. This position was presented in the parties Third Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart. Id. On appeal, however, Synaptics contends that the district court erred because it " n e v e r determined, much less analyzed, the precise algorithm that is part o f the recited structure." A p p e l l a n t ' s B r i e f at 44 (citations omitted). The decisions o f this court, however, preclude Synaptics from proffering or adopting a new claim construction on appeal after presenting the district court with an agreed upon construction. T h e d o c t r i n e o f j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l / w a i v e r p r o v i d e s t h a t a p a r t y will b e judicially estopped from asserting a position on appeal that is directly opposed to a position that the party successfully urged at trial. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 4 5 - 4 6 (Fed. Cir. 2001); s e e also K e y Pharms.
v.

Hereon Labs. Copr., 161 F.3d 7 0 9 , 7 1 5 n . l (Fed. Cir. 1998) (listing additional

s o u r c e s t h a t e n d o r s e this c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l ) ; s e e a l s o S a g e

22

ELN042524

Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

( p r e c l u d i n g S a g e ' s c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n o f " e l o n g a t e d s l o t " and " c o n t a i n e r b o d y " because they differed from the claim construction urged before the trial court).

In Key Pharmaceuticals, the trial court adopted the claim construction set
forth b y the accused infringer, Hereon Laboratories Corp. Key Ph arms. , 161 F.3d at 712. On a motion for reconsideration and on appeal, Hereon changed positions and argued a different claim construction than it had urged before the trial court.
Id. at 715. This court noted that H e r e o n ' s change in position was " a n obvious

attempt to salvage its invalidity case." Id. This court then noted that the obvious impropriety o f such reversals o f position justified an estoppel, even in that case, but declined to estop Hereon out o f " a n abundance o f fairness" because this court had not previously explicitly so ruled. Id. at 715-16. Nonetheless, as this court has since acknowledged, " K e y Pharmaceuticals thus stands for the proposition that a party will be judicially estopped from asserting a position on appeal that is inconsistent with a position it advocated at trial and persuaded the trial court to adopt." Interactive Gift Express, 256 F.3d at 1346. Having agreed that the corresponding structure to the " m e a n s for scanning" l i m i t a t i o n w a s t h e " a n a l o g m u l t i p l e x o r 45, c a p a c i t a n c e m e a s u r i n g c i r c u i t 7 0 , analog to digital converter 80, microcontroller 60" and having urged the district c o u r t to a d o p t t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n , S y n a p t i c s ' p r e v i o u s l y u n a s s e r t e d a r g u m e n t f o r a

23

ELN042525

narrower claim construction with an algorithm being part o f the structure corresponding to the "means for scanning" limitation should be rejected. See

Superguide Corp. v. D i r c t T V Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 889-90 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(refusing to address a broader construction on appeal when before the district court the parties had agreed upon and presented the construction to the trial court); see

also Finnigan Corp. v. I n t ' l Trade Comm 'n, 180 F .3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(stating that a court is not required "to effectively retry claim construction de novo b y consideration o f novel arguments not first presented to the tribunal whose decision is on review."). Even i f Synaptics could raise an argument that its Type 2 Code algorithm is "entirely different" from the algorithm disclosed in the ' 3 5 2 Patent, that argument should fail. T h e proper test for determining whether the structure in an accused device is equivalent to the structure recited in a section 112, ~ 6, claim is whether the differences between the structures are insubstantial. WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1351. In this case, there was no dispute o r factfinding in the district court on this point precisely because Synaptics accepted (and urge the district court to accept) the construction that the corresponding section 112, ~ 6 structure o f the " m e a n s for scanning" limitation is the "analog multiplexor 45, capacitance measuring circuit 70, analog to digital converter 80, microcontroller 60." A I 2 7 6 and A1365. H a v i n g c h a r t e d its c o u r s e i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S y n a p t i c s c a n n o t n o w a d v o c a t e a

24

ELN042526

different corresponding structure. Thus, at the very least, it is appropriate to infer equivalence. Otherwise, Synaptics stands to reap a windfall by simply reversing a position it previously adopted and urged upon the district court.

B.

Synaptics'Type 2 Code products utilize equivalent structure to the structure linked to the "means for providing an indication" limitation o f Claim 18.

T h e district court did not construe the meaning o f the "means for providing an indication" limitation in the Claim Construction Order. In relation to the p a r t i e s ' cross-motions for summary judgment, however, the district court later c o n s i d e r e d t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n and c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n d o e s n o t require that the indication o f two fingers be returned to the host. Instead, the limitation merely requires the infringing methodology to "perform some affirmative step to provide an indication o f multiple fingers." A24. At summary judgment, there was no dispute about the function o f this l i m i t a t i o n . A 1 2 7 6 a n d A1365. W h e t h e r t h e ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t i d e n t i f i e d a s t r u c t u r e corresponding to the "means for providing an indication" limitation, however, was disputed. Synaptics contended that there was none identified. A1276 and A1365. Synaptics offers three arguments as to why the district court erred in granting summary j u d g m e n t to Elantech on whether the "means for providing an indication" limitation is satisfied by Synaptics' Type 2 Code. First, Synaptics contends that Claim 18 's " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation is

25

ELN042527

indefinite because nothing in the ' 3 5 2 Patent links any structure to the recited function. Second, Synaptics argues that the district court erred as a matter o f law in holding that "microcontroller" alone was the structure corresponding to the function. Third, Synaptics contends that the district court did not compare the algorithmic routine(s) o f the Synaptics' Type 2 Code products with those described in the ' 3 5 2 Patent. None o f Synaptics' arguments withstands scrutiny. 1. The '352 Patent clearly links structure to the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation.

T h e district court was correct in concluding that no reasonable finder o f fact would conclude that Synaptics satisfied its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the "means for providing an indication" limitation is indefinite. See Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ( " [ A ] challenge to a claim containing a means-plus-function limitation as lacking structural support requires a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the specification lacks disclosure o f structure sufficient to b e understood b y o n e skilled in the art as adequate to perform the recited function."). T h e w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t m a k e s p l a i n that t h e o p e r a t i o n o f the touchpad is controlled b y microcontroller 60 running appropriate firmware.
A 138 (5:49-51) ("[M]icrocontroller 60, which operates to form, among other

things, a finger profile for one o r more fingers, X - Y cursor data, and control s i g n a l s . " ) . " D e p e n d i n g o n t h e o p e r a t i o n b e i n g p e r f o r m e d at t h e p a r t i c u l a r t i m e , t h e

26

ELN042528

output o f microcontroller 60 is then supplied to an interface to a PC o r other device . . . . " A 138 (5:52-55). In addition, the description makes clear that the operation o f the system that includes the microcontroller "is controlled in either firmware, software o r hardware. Shown in FIG. 5 is a flow diagram showing the general operation o f such software o r firmware which is capable o f detecting multiple fingers, and which uses the algorithm o f FIG. 6 . . . . " A139 (7:1-5). The ' 3 5 2 Patent also discloses exemplary firmware executing on the microcontroller 60 that i n c l u d e s a s i m p l i f i e d algorithm called " X c o m p u t e , " which w h e n e x e c u t e d p r o v i d e s an indication o f the presence o f two fingers b y setting the "Xfinger" variable to 2. A135 (Fig. 9-2 at Step 980). In short, the written description o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent plainly discloses that the microcontroller 60 operates to form various data, including an indication o f the presence o f multiple fingers. Thus, one o f ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that the algorithm o f FIG. 9 would be executed b y the microcontroller 60. In addition, one o f ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r , w h i c h g o v e r n s t h e o p e r a t i o n o f the t o u c h p a d , a l o n g with t h e algorithm implemented by the microcontroller to "form, among other things, a finger profile for o n e o r more fingers . . . . " is the corresponding structure to the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation. A 138 (5:48-51) and A 135 (Fig. 92). T h e district court properly concluded that the '352 Patent links the

27

ELN042529

microprocessor system and disclosed algorithm with the "means for providing an i n d i c a t i o n " limitation. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. I n t ' l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999), is instructive on the proper disposition o f this issue, and it supports E l a n t e c h ' s position. Although the written description o f the patent at issue in that case did not actually disclose " a microprocessor, or computer, to control the operation o f the s l o t m a c h i n e , i n c l u d i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o f the m a c h i n e i n t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f n u m b e r s to reel stop positions," this Court accepted that construction, however, because the p a r t i e s h a d e n t e r e d i n t o a s t i p u l a t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a d a c c e p t e d the stipulation, and the stipulation was not being disputed on appeal. ld. at 1347, f n 2 . T h e specification also included an algorithm that controlled the assignment o f numbers to reel stop positions on a slot machine. Id. This Court held, as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e d i s c l o s e d b y t h e l i m i t a t i o n at i s s u e w a s a microprocessor programmed to perform the algorithm illustrated in the patent. Id. at 1349. T h e same result is mandated in this case - the patent at issue discloses a microprocessor and algorithm to b e executed thereon and the algorithm provides an indication o f multiple fingers on the touchpad; as a matter o f l a w , the ' 3 5 2 Patent sufficiently discloses the corresponding structure for the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation. See id.

28

ELN042530

In r e Dossel, 115 F J d 942, 946 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which involved a claim for

a " m e a n s for reconstructing," also supports a conclusion that the ' 3 5 2 Patent sufficiently discloses the corresponding structure for the "means for providing an indication" element. In Dossel, this court concluded that the specification sufficiently disclosed a computer as corresponding structure. Id. Although the specification did not use the term "computer," it described a structure that "receive[d] digital data, perform[ ed] complex mathematical computations and output[ ] the results to a display." Id. at 946-47. This court concluded that one o f skill in the art o f medical imaging would understand that a computer must b e the structure to perform these functions. Id. Further, although no code that the c o m p u t e r would use to perform the functions was disclosed, the specification did explain that " k n o w n algorithms" could b e used in the reconstruction process. Id. at 946. This case presents an even stronger showing than that found in D o s s e l because the ' 3 5 2 Patent discloses a microprocessor and algorithm to be executed thereon. Moreover, the algorithm provides an indication o f multiple fingers on the touchpad. T h e ' 3 5 2 Patent sufficiently discloses the corresponding structure that is linked to the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation. See also A l l v o i c e
Computing, P L C v. N u a n c e Commc 'ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1244-45 (Fed. Cir.

2007 ( a f f i r m i n g district c o u r t ' s definiteness d e t e r m i n a t i o n where t h e p a t e n t

29

ELN042531

disclosure and accompanying figures provided sufficient structure to define the structure for the ordinarily skilled artisan). T h e cases cited b y Synaptics in support o f its indefiniteness a r g u m e n t do not dictate a different conclusion. F o r example, in Aristocrat Tech. Australia Pty Ltd.
v. I n t ' l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the specification at

i s s u e d i d n o t d e s i g n a t e a n y p a r t i c u l a r a l g o r i t h m to p e r f o r m t h e c l a i m e d f u n c t i o n . Thus, the c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t the p a t e n t e e h a d o n l y disclosed a general m i c r o p r o c e s s o r insufficient to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112, ~ 6. Unlike the p a t e n t at issue in Aristocrat, the ' 3 5 2 Patent plainly provides an algorithm to p e r f o r m the c l a i m e d function for the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation. A 135 (Fig. 9-2).

Tehrani v. Hamilton Medical, Inc., 331 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003),
a l s o c i t e d b y S y n a p t i c s , r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e w a s t h e disclosed microprocessor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. D u e to a l a c k o f c l a r i t y i n t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l , h o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t r e m a n d e d t h e m a t t e r to t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t to d e t e r m i n e t h e a l g o r i t h m t h a t w a s p a r t o f t h e r e c i t e d s t r u c t u r e .

Id. Such a result is not called for in this case because the algorithm that is part o f
t h e microprocessor is p l a i n l y identified in Figure 6 a n d Figure 9-2 o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent.

30

ELN042532

Finisar Corp. v. D i r e c T V Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir.

2008), is also unavailing for Synaptics. In that case, the patent simply recited that " s o f t w a r e " would carry out the function. Id. Because the patent did not provide enough o f an algorithm to satisfy one o f ordinary skill in the art that the structure c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h the f u n c t i o n , t h e p a t e n t w a s i n d e f i n i t e . H e r e t h e ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t specification clearly provides that "In the exemplary algorithm shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, a determination is made whether zero, one or two fingers are in contact with the touchpad . . . . I t will be appreciated that FIG. 8 is analogous to FIG. 5, while FIG. 9 is analogous to FIG. 6." A142 (13:61-67). One o f ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the algorithm o f Figure 9, executed by the microcontroller, is the disclosed structure linked to the "means for providing an indication" limitation. S y n a p t i c s b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g indefiniteness b y " c l e a r a n d convincing" evidence. Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The record presented to the district court confirms that the ' 3 5 2 Patent clearly links the microcontroller (and its associated software o r firmware executing o n it, including the algorithm o f Figure 9-2) to the "means for providing an i n d i c a t i o n " l i m i t a t i o n . W h e n v i e w e d t h r o u g h t h e lens o f t h e c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g evidence standard (or any other p r o o f standard) Synaptics has not provided any basis to establish a substantial question that the microcontroller (and its associated software o r firmware executing on it, including the algorithm o f Figure 9-2) is not

31

ELN042533

adequately linked to the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation. See Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming district c o u r t finding t h a t p a t e n t d i s c l o s e d a d e q u a t e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e b e c a u s e language o f the specification and its accompanying figure made clear that the structure was capable o f performing the function recited in the claim limitation).

2.

T h e ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t c l e a r l y links t h e m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r a n d i t s associated software or firmware executing on it, including the algorithm o f Figure 9-2, to the "means for providing an indication" limitation.

S y n a p t i c s a r g u e s that the m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r alone c o u l d not b e a c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure. S y n a p t i c s ' a r g u m e n t distorts the district c o u r t ' s ruling a n d m i s a p p r e h e n d s relevant caselaw. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i d e n t i f i e d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e o f the " m e a n s for p r o v i d i n g an i n d i c a t i o n " l i m i t a t i o n t o b e " t h e m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r w h i c h g o v e r n s t h e operation o f the touchpad." A54. In order to govern the operation o f the touchpad the microcontroller forms data in the manner described in t h e ' 3 5 2 Patent, i.e., in accordance with the software o r firmware executing on it, including the algorithm o f Figure 9-2. Despite Synaptics' attempts to narrow the district c o u r t ' s ruling b e y o n d r e c o g n i t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d not i d e n t i f y t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e as the microcontroller alone. Implicit in the district c o u r t ' s conclusion regarding t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure w e r e the programs and a l g o r i t h m s e x e c u t e d o n the microcontroller and disclosed b y the ' 3 5 2 Patent. See, e.g., A135 (Fig. 9-2).

32

ELN042534

In any event, Synaptics' argument on this point is simply a re-distillation o f the indefiniteness argument which, as made clear above, fails because the ' 3 5 2 Patent makes clear that the corresponding structure to the " m e a n s for providing an indication" limitation is the microcontroller 60 and its associated software o r firmware, including the algorithm in Figure 9-2. See discussion supra I I . B . l .

3.

S y n a p t i c s ' Type 2 Code provides a n indication o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f t w o f i n g e r s i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r a s t h e '352 Patent.

Third, Synaptics argues that the district court failed to compare the routines o f the two structures. This argument ignores the record presented to the district court. T h e district court p r o p e r l y concluded t h e T y p e 2 Code, s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e o n e A x i s m o d u l e a n d r e l a t e d f i r m w a r e p r o v i d e s an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f two fingers in the same m a n n e r as the ' 3 5 2 Patent. A54 (5: 15-25) and A56 (7: 1115). T h e ' 3 5 2 P a t e n t d i s c l o s e s e x e m p l a r y f i r m w a r e e x e c u t i n g on t h e m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 60 t h a t i n c l u d e s a simplified algorithm c a l l e d " X c o m p u t e , " w h i c h w h e n e x e c u t e d p r o v i d e s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f t w o fingers b y s e t t i n g t h e " X f i n g e r " variable to 2. A 135 (Fig. 9-2). The written description o f the ' 3 5 2 Patent plainly discloses that the microcontroller 60 operates to form various data, including an indication o f the presence o f multiple fingers. A139 (7: 1-5). S y n a p t i c s ' o w n expert conceded this point. A3155 at,-r 25.

33

ELN042535

Synaptics' Type 2 Code also provides an indication o f the presence o f two fingers. For example, when two finger