Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1201

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Claim Construction Brief filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Trac Declaration in Support of Motion to File Under Seal, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Claim Construction Brief)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/10/2012) Modified on 7/12/2012 attachment #1 Sealed pursuant to General Order No. 62 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

19

SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

20

Plaintiff,
vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27

FILED UNDER SEAL

28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
3

Page
Cases

4 Bicon v. Straumann,
441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................9
5
Cisco Systems Inc. v. Teleconference Sys., LLC,
6
2011 WL 5913972 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011) .............................................................................5
7 Falana v. Kent State University,
669 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................5
8
Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
9
256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................2
10 Keithley v. Homestorecom Inc.,
2007 WL 2701337 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2007) ..............................................................................5
11
Kilopass Technology Inc. v. Sidense Corp.,
12
2012 WL 1534065 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2012) .......................................................................... 2-3
13 Primos v. Hunter’s Specialties,
451 F.3d 841 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................9
14
Saunders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc.,
15
492 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................................9
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-ii-

1

A.

Apple’s Litigation-Inspired Construction

2
Apple claims that an electronic document cannot consist of more than one file.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Yet, when faced with the Tablecloth prior art in this litigation,

18

19 Apple has suddenly performed an about face, seeking to introduce its single-file limitation.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

As used herein, citations to “Ex. __” refer to exhibits previously attached to the
Declaration of Patrick Schmidt in Support of Samsung’s Claim Construction Brief.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-2-

1
2
3

B.

Apple’s Proposed Construction Ignores the Court’s Construction for “Edge of
an Electronic Document.”

4
Apple’s proposed construction for “electronic document” directly contradicts the Court’s
5
construction of “edge of an electronic document.” In its claim construction order, the Court
6
“agree[d] with Samsung that an electronic document can be embedded in another electronic
7
document.” Claim Construction Order at 19. Such embedded electronic documents generally
8
consist of multiple files.

For example, webpages are often made up of multiple electronic

documents (e.g., images).

Apple offers no basis for overturning the Court’s prior decision,

9
10
because no such basis exists. As the Court has already recognized, “Apple has not offered a
11
limiting principle, rooted in the intrinsic evidence, to establish why an electronic document may
12
not be nested in another electronic document.” Id. at 20-21.
13
C.

The Intrinsic Evidence Unequivocally Supports Samsung’s Construction.

14
Apple provides no new evidence rooted in the claims or specification to support its
15
argument.

Apple repeatedly cites the examples of electronic documents listed in the ’381

16
specification – a web page, a digital image, and a word processing, spreadsheet, email or
17

presentation document3 – in support of its construction. Yet Apple does not actually explain how

18
these examples require an “electronic document” to be stored as a single file. Indeed, these
19
examples support Samsung’s construction. There is no dispute, for example, that a web page is
20
an “electronic document” and that it consists of multiple image files. This is illustrated in the
21
example webpage Apple provided in its opening brief.

As shown below, this example appears

22
to have at least six separate image files, which are outlined below in red. Each of these image
23
files are “electronic documents.”
24
25

3

Apple also cites to claim 9 to argue that a list of items is an “electronic document.” Claim
26 9 reads, “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document
includes a list of items.” Ex. 1: ’381 patent at claim 9. To the extent the Court finds that a list of
27 items is an “electronic document,” this only bolsters Samsung’s construction, since each item in
the list may be its own file.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 The fact that Apple’s own cited example of an “electronic document” consists of multiple files
4
13 further demonstrates that its proposed construction for “electronic document” is not correct.

In contrast, Samsung’s construction, that an “electronic document” is “visually represented

14

15 on the screen,” is well-grounded in the claims and specification. The ’381 patent is directed to a
16 visual snapback effect and not a method of data storage as Apple contends. For example, asserted
17 claim 19 and the other independent claims discuss the “display” of a first, second, third, and fourth
18 “portion” of an “electronic document.” The claims also describe electronic documents being
19 “translated” in a first and second direction. In both examples, the visible electronic document is
20 manipulated by the user. The patent as a whole also addresses visible content, as seen in a
21 multitude of figures. See Figs. 3, 4, 6A-D (scrolling), 8A-D (scrolling), 10A-C (zooming out),
22 12A-C (zooming in), 13A-C (zooming in), 15A-E (rotating), 16A-F (rotating). Thus, it is clear
23 that the “electronic document” is visually represented on the screen. Apple’s requirement that an
24
4

Because its own position is untenable, Apple uses a straw man to attack Samsung’s
construction, setting up a Windows desktop with three random windows and claiming that they
26 would be an “electronic document.” This is a gross distortion of Samsung’s position. An
“electronic document” has a “defined set of boundaries” such that the entire document translates
27 together in response to certain user inputs. Apple had no difficulty understanding this concept
when it accused a collection of images in HTC’s products of infringing the ’381 patent.
28
25

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-4-

1 “electronic document” must be a single file ignores this overwhelming evidence regarding the
2 visible electronic document. Under Apple’s construction, an image stored as a single file can
3 practice the ’381 patent while the exact same image stored as two separate files cannot practice the
4 patent. Apple’s construction is illogical and is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence.
5

Finally, Apple’s alternative proposal—that the Court “instruct[] the jury using the precise

6 examples of an “electronic document” recited in the ’381 specification and dependent claims,”—
7 (Apple Br. at 3) is also improper, as “a jury could mistakenly interpret the scope of the term to be
8 narrower than intended by (1) finding the list of examples to be exhaustive; or (2) finding that the
9 term is somehow limited to a subset of the items on the list.” Keithley v. Homestorecom Inc.,
10 2007 WL 2701337 at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2007) (rejecting exemplary claim construction
11 language); Cisco Systems Inc. v. Teleconference Sys., LLC, 2011 WL 5913972 at *8 (N.D. Cal.
12 Nov. 28, 2011) (rejecting unexhausted list of examples which “would not assist the jury and could
13 cause some confusion”). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly cautioned against limiting
14 the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.”
15 Falana v. Kent State University, 669 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted). Thus
16 the Court should not adopt Apple’s proposal to recite specific examples to construe “electronic
17 document.”
18

D.

19

According to Apple, the five dictionary definitions it has offered define “electronic

Apple’s Dictionary Definitions Support Samsung.

20 document” as a single file. Yet three of these definitions apply to the wrong term, defining
21 “document” instead of “electronic document.”

The two definitions that actually define

22 “electronic document” do not support Apple’s position. First, The IBM Dictionary of Computing
23 (1994) offers the following definition of “electronic document”:
24
25
26
27
28

electronic document A document that is stored on a computer,
instead of printed on paper.
Nothing in this definition states that an “electronic document” must be stored as a single file or
otherwise limits the way in which the document is electronically stored on a computer. In fact,
this same dictionary defines “document” to include:
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-5-

1 something that is viewed and manipulated by the user of the portable electronic device. Indeed, it
2 would make no sense to construe the term “structured electronic document” to mean information
3 stored in a specific manner because no such set of information is “enlarged and translated” in
4 response to user gestures.6 Instead, it is a visual depiction of some collection of information that
5 is “enlarged and translated” on the touch-screen display. Claim 50 simply contains no limitation
6 on how the content displayed within the “structured electronic document” must be stored in
7 memory.
8

B.

9

The Structured Electronic Document Need Not Contain Blocks Or Boxes Of
Content “In The Document.”

10

Based on its proposed construction and opening brief, it is not clear whether and to what

11 extent Apple is attempting to impose further limitations to the term “structured electronic
12 document.” But, as presently phrased, Apple’s proposed construction could prove problematic.
13 For instance, according to Apple’s construction, a “structured electronic document” must contain
14 “blocks or boxes of content in the document.” (Apple’s Opening Br. at 7 (emphasis added)).
15 Because Apple suggests that a “document” is a single file stored in memory, this limitation might
16 be read to support the mistaken view that all the content comprising a “structured electronic
17 document” derive from a single file.7
18
19

6

Although Mr. Gray describes a “structured electronic document” by reference to
20 underlying coding in his expert report, his position has always been that the term “structured
electronic document” refers to something visual on the touch-screen display. Ex. 8: Expert
21
Invalidity Report of Stephen Gray at ¶ 274 (“a ‘structured electronic document’ refers to any type
of two dimensional information space . . . . [C]oding is embedded within the content of the
22
document and specifies how elements or objects are to be arranged within the information space
23 and relative to one another.”). He has never implied that a “structured electronic document”
requires all the underlying content and coding to be contained within a single file.
7
24
In an effort to reinforce this view, Apple’s opening brief is littered with references to its
merits arguments, made in opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment. For
25
example, Apple characterizes LaunchTile as “conceptually independent application tiles arranged
26 onto a grid for display,” (Apple’s Br. at 8), and a “programmatically assembled . . . display of
grids of distinct application program tiles,” (Apple’s Br. at 10). Even if Apple’s construction of
27 the claim terms were correct, Samsung disagrees with these characterizations of LaunchTile, but it
will present its arguments to the jury. Suffice it to say, Apple’s urging the Court to construe the
28
(footnote continued)
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-8-

1

Again, this position does not find support in the ’163 patent. In fact, in one detailed

2 embodiment, the ’163 patent specification discusses how a “structured electronic document” can
3 contain embedded “inline media” objects that would not necessarily be stored in the same file as
4 the rest of the content comprising the “structured electronic document.” Ex. 7: ’163 patent at col.
5 16 ll. 27-29, col. 23 ll. 13-20. According to the patent, such “inline multimedia” objects might
6 include “QuickTime content (4002-1), Windows Media content (4002-2), or Flash content (40027 3).” Id. at col. 22 ll. 41-44. A “first gesture . . . on an item of inline multimedia content”
8 enlarges the multimedia object, while other content in the structured electronic document “ceases
9 to be displayed.” Id. at col. 23 ll. 24-25, 31-37; col. 23 ll. 65 - col. 24 ll. 42; see also fig. 8.
10 Because this embodiment expressly contemplates “boxes of content” within the “structured
11 electronic document” that are not necessarily stored in one, single file, the Court should reject
12 Apple’s proposed construction. See Primos v. Hunter’s Specialties, 451 F. 3d 841, 849 (Fed. Cir.
13 2006) (a court should not normally interpret a claim term to exclude a preferred embodiment).
14

C.

A "Structured Electronic Document" Need Not Be “Formatted To
Differentiate” Regions of Content From One Another.

15
Finally, the Court should reject Apple’s proposed construction to the extent it might be
16
read to require a “structured electronic document” be “formatted” to itself differentiate “particular
17
blocks or boxes of content . . . from one another.” Although a “structured electronic document”
18
might be formatted to display visually differentiated regions, there is no requirement that any
19
formatting actively do the differentiating. In fact, because claim 50 contains a further limitation
20
“for determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture,” the Court
21
should avoid reading this very same limitation into the meaning of “structured electronic
22
document.” Bicon v. Straumann, 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (a court should avoid a
23
construction that renders terms superfluous).
24
25
26

term “structured electronic document” in a manner that would avoid the prior art is improper.
27 See Saunders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he court’s
validity analysis cannot be used as basis for adopting a narrow construction of the claims.”).
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-9-

1

In short, there is no basis in the intrinsic evidence for adopting Apple’s proposed

2 limitations on the term “structured electronic document.”8 The Court should adopt Samsung’s
3 proposed construction and hold that “structured electronic document” means “content having a
4 defined set of boundaries that can be visually represented on a screen that includes at least one
5 visual structural element.”
6

CONCLUSION

7

For the forgoing reasons, the Court should adopt Samsung’s proposed construction for the

8 term “electronic document” in the ’381 patent, and Samsung’s proposed construction for the term
9 “structured electronic document” in the ’163 patent.
10
11 DATED: July 10, 2012
12

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Victoria F. Maroulis
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8

As was the case for the ’381 patent, Samsung also objects to Apple’s proposal that the Court
provide the jury with a hand-picked set of exemplary “structured electronic documents.”
27 Samsung’s proposed construction is more than adequate, and such a clarification can only risk
misleading the jury as to the scope of the claims.
28
26

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

-10-