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

Filing 1351

Unredacted Claim Construction Brief by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) re 1256 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, re (Dkt. No. 1183) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 4 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 9 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 10 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 11 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 12 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 13 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 14 to the Schmidt Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (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 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 OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3
4 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 1
5 I.

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381 ............................................................................................... 1

6

A. 

The ’381 Patent ......................................................................................................... 1

7

B.

“Electronic Document” ............................................................................................. 2

8

1. 

Intrinsic Evidence .......................................................................................... 2

9

2.

Extrinsic Evidence......................................................................................... 3

10 II. 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,864,163 ............................................................................................... 5

11

A. 

The ’163 Patent ......................................................................................................... 5

12

B. 

“Structured Electronic Document”............................................................................ 5

13

1.

Intrinsic Evidence .......................................................................................... 6

14

2.

Extrinsic Evidence......................................................................................... 7

15 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 9
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-iSAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
3

Page
Cases

4 Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.,
952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1991) ........................................................................................................9
5
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
6
358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................................7
7 In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................9
8
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
9
358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................................3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-iiSAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

Pursuant to the Court’s instructions during the June 29, 2012 hearing, Defendants and

2 counterclaimants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
3 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) respectfully submit this
4 opening brief on two disputed claim terms from two utility patents asserted by Apple Inc.
5 (“Apple”). The two terms at issue are “electronic document” as used in U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381
6 (the “’381 patent”) and “structured electronic document” as used in U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 (the
7 “’163 patent”). As explained below, Samsung’s constructions for these closely related terms
8 should be adopted in full by the Court.
ARGUMENT1

9
10 I.

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381

11

A.

12

The ’381 Patent

The ’381 patent, entitled “List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling, and Rotation

13 On A Touch-Screen Display,” deals with displaying and translating “electronic documents” on a
14 touch-screen display and addresses the specific case of a user reaching an “edge” of such an
15 “electronic document.”

Ex. 1: ’381 patent. 2

Claim 19, the only asserted claim, generally

16 purports to cover a portable electronic device capable of displaying “a first portion” of an
17 “electronic document”; translating the “electronic document” in a first direction to display a
18 second portion of the “electronic document”; displaying “an area beyond an edge of the electronic
19 document” and displaying a third portion of the “electronic document”; and translating the
20 “electronic document” in a second direction until “the area beyond the edge of the electronic
21 document is no longer displayed” to display a fourth portion of the “electronic document.” See
22 id.
23
24
25

1

Because the Court is familiar with the legal standards regarding claim construction,
26 Samsung will not repeat them here.
2
As used herein, citations to “Ex. __” refer to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Patrick
27 Schmidt in support of Samsung’s Claim Construction Brief.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1
2

B.

“Electronic Document”

The term “electronic document” should be construed to mean “content having a defined set

3 of boundaries that can be visually represented on a screen.”

As explained below, this

4 construction is fully supported by the claim language, specification, prosecution history, inventor
5 testimony and both parties’ experts.
6
7

1.

Intrinsic Evidence

The plain language of the claims supports Samsung’s construction of “electronic

8 document.”

First, the express language of the claims provide many examples of electronic

9 documents, including web pages, digital images, word processing documents, spreadsheets, e10 mails, and presentations. Ex. 1: ’381 patent at claims 6-8. All of these are examples of “content
11 having a defined set of boundaries that can be visually represented on a screen.” The breadth and
12 diversity of these examples confirms that a large variety of electronic content is included in the
13 term “electronic document.”
14

Second, an electronic document “has a defined set of boundaries.” The claims of the ’381

15 patent describe an “edge” of the electronic document and an “area beyond the edge”; thus, the
16 electronic document must contain some edge or boundary. Nothing more is required. As the
17 Court has already held, these boundaries may be “internal,” such that content exists beyond the
18 edge. Dkt. No. 849, Claim Construction Order at 19, 23. Similarly, an electronic document may
19 include other embedded electronic documents, such as images in a web page. Id. at 19. In either
20 example, the electronic document has identifiable boundaries that denote the edge of the electronic
21 document and an area beyond the edge.
22

Third, an electronic document “can be visually represented on the screen.” The plain

23 claim language explains that a first, second, third and fourth “portion of the electronic document”
24 is visible when practicing the claims. This indicates that the electronic document can be visible
25 on the screen, but is not always visible. Moreover, the ’381 patent identifies an “electronic
26 document” and not merely a “document.” This distinguishes the document in the ’381 patent
27 from more conventional “documents” such as paper documents. While the content of a paper
28 document is always printed on the paper, an electronic document is not always visible on the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1 screen. Instead, that content “can be visually represented on the screen” by zooming, scrolling, or
2 otherwise manipulating the electronic document.
3

The specification also supports Samsung’s construction.

The specification provides

4 several examples of electronic documents including: web pages, digital images, and word
5 processing, spreadsheet, email and presentation documents. Ex. 1: ’381 patent at col. 27 ll. 7-12,
6 col. 30 ll. 18-26, col. 31 ll. 9-16, & col. 32 ll. 20-23. Thus, a variety of electronic content
7 including text, images, and combinations of text and images are encompassed by the term. Web
8 pages and presentations typically include multiple embedded images, and word processing, email
9 and even spreadsheet documents can include embedded images or graphs.
10

The specification imposes no additional constraints on the scope of the term “electronic

11 document.” Thus, it would be improper to import additional limitations from the specification
12 into the claim. See, e.g., SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
13 2004).
14
15

2.

Extrinsic Evidence

Samsung’s construction is also supported by extrinsic evidence.

Apple’s expert, Dr.

16 Balakrishnan, testified that an electronic document may include anything visually representable on
17 a screen with defined boundaries. See, e.g., Exs. 2 & 3: Balakrishnan Dep. (8/16/2011) at 27:1318 28:18, 147:16-158:22, 161:13-163:2, & Ex. 104. Dr. Balakrishnan explained:
19
20
21
22

“In the context of [the ‘381] patent, my understanding, having read
the patent and the claims, is the electronic document is some visual
representation on the screen that has a defined length and a width,
as an example, or defined set of boundaries, because they may not
have to be a rectangular set of boundaries.”

23 Id. at 27:19-25 (emphasis added). Dr. Balakrishnan’s understanding of an electronic document is
24 consistent with that of Bas Ording – the named inventor on the ‘381 patent. Mr. Ording testified
25 that an electronic document is something that is electronically stored and that is visible or
26 displayed.

See, e.g., Ex. 4: Ording Dep. (8/9/2011) at 20:18-21:3.

Samsung’s expert, Dr.

27 Andries van Dam, also agreed with this construction. See Ex. 5: Van Dam Decl. ¶ 32.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

Dr. Balakrishnan also testified that multiple blocks of content could comprise a single

2 electronic document, confirming the breadth of the term “electronic document.” For example, Dr.
3 Balakrishnan confirmed that blocks 1, 2, and 8 shown in the figure below could constitute an
4 electronic document or that blocks 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24 could be an electronic
5 document. Ex. 2: Balakrishnan Dep. (8/16/2011) at 155:10-156:1, 152:24-153:24.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

In litigation against HTC, Apple again identified electronic documents containing multiple

15 embedded images. Apple’s complaint against HTC identifies its Gallery feature as infringing on
16 the ’381 patent.

This Gallery feature displays multiple photographs as a single electronic

17 document, as shown in the excerpt below:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1 Ex. 6: Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software, 337-TA-797, Ex. 13 at 5
2 (“Exemplary Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381”).
3

Both of these examples confirm that the accepted meaning of “electronic document” is

4 “content having a defined set of boundaries that can be visually represented on a screen,”
5 regardless of whether multiple electronic documents are embedded within.
6
7 II.

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,864,163

8

A.

9

The ’163 patent, entitled “Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User

The ’163 Patent

10 Interface for Displaying Structured Electronic Documents,” relates to enlarging and centering a
11 structured electronic document. Ex. 7: ’163 patent. Apple accuses Samsung of infringing claim
12 50 of the ’163 patent. Claim 50 requires a device capable of displaying at least a portion of a
13 “structured electronic document” on a touch screen display; instructions for “enlarging and
14 translating” the “structured electronic document” to “substantially center” a “first box” of content
15 in response to a “first gesture”; and instructions for “translating” the “structured electronic
16 document” to “substantially center” a “second box” of content in response to a “second gesture.”
17

B.

18

The term “structured electronic document” should be construed to mean “an electronic

“Structured Electronic Document”

19 document that includes at least one visual structural element.” 3

Alternatively, (substituting

20 construction for the term “electronic document” discussed above) “structured electronic
21 document” should mean “content having a defined set of boundaries that can be visually
22 represented on a screen that includes at least one visual structural element.”
23
24

3

The construction that Samsung proposes here differs in approach – but not in substance –
from the description offered by Mr. Gray and the construction offered in support of its motion for
25
summary judgment. Mr. Gray sought to define a “structured electronic document” by reference
26 to its underlying “coding.” Ex. 8: Gray Expert Invalidity Report ¶ 274. However, in light of the
Court's suggestion that the parties attempt to reconcile their proposed constructions of “electronic
27 document” and “structured electronic document” (for the ’163 patent), Samsung has now focused
its construction on the visual characteristics of a “structured electronic document.”
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1

The meaning of “structured electronic document” is very similar to that of the term

2 “electronic document.” The only additional requirement is that the “electronic document” be
3 “structured.” The word “structured” merely adds the requirement that content elements within
4 the electronic document be arranged and/or displayed in a manner that conveys at least one
5 structural element to the viewer. A structural element might involve separating content elements
6 by a visual border, representing adjacent content elements in two different styles, or even making
7 use of empty space to represent to the viewer that one region of content is distinct from another.
8 Samsung’s construction is consistent with the construction for “electronic document” discussed
9 above and is supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
10
11

1.

Intrinsic Evidence

Samsung’s proposed construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence. Claim 50 of the

12 ’163 patent describes a structured electronic document as comprising “a plurality of boxes of
13 content,” which indicates that the structured electronic document is characterized by a collection
14 of distinct content elements. The claim goes on to describe a “first gesture” corresponding to a
15 “first box” and a “second gesture” corresponding to a “second box,” which makes clear that the
16 content elements exist in visually distinct regions of the structured electronic document.
17 Unasserted claims 8 and 9 describe how the “boxes” of content that characterize a structured
18 electronic document can be “defined” in many different ways – for example, by a style sheet
19 language or a cascading style sheet language, respectively. Ex. 7: ’163 patent at claims 8 & 9.
20

The specification provides further support for Samsung’s proposed construction. The

21 specification describes a “structured document” as being “made of blocks 3914 of text content and
22 other graphics (e.g., images and inline multimedia).”

Id. at col. 16 ll. 27-29.

The term

23 “graphics,” is itself defined broadly to include “any object that can be displayed to a user,
24 including without limitation text, web pages, icons, (such as user-interface objects including soft
25 keys), digital images, videos, animations and the like.” Id. at col. 10 l. 65 – col. 11 l. 2. In
26 describing a “box of content,” the specification equates the term to a “logical grouping of content”
27 that might “comprise[] a paragraph, an image, a plugin object, or a table.” Id. at col. 19 ll. 26-29.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-6SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1 Figure 5A, reproduced below, depicts notionally how a structured electronic document might
2 appear:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Although the specification explains that a “web page” and an “HTML or XML document”

17 meet the limitation “structured electronic document,” see Ex. 7: ‘’163 patent, fig. 6A at 6002, col.
18 16 l. 27, col. 18 ll. 50-52, col. 23 ll. 20-23, the term should not be limited to these examples.
19 Unasserted claims 4 and 5 are dependent on unasserted claim 2, and purport to cover the method
20 of claim 2 wherein the “structured electronic document” is a “web page” and “an HTML or XML
21 document,” respectively. Because, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
22 limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent
23 claim,” the term structured electronic document should be construed to include more than merely
24 web pages and HTML or XML documents. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
25 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
26
27

2.

Extrinsic Evidence

Samsung’s proposed construction is also supported by the extrinsic evidence. Samsung’s

28 expert, Mr. Gray has opined that a structured electronic document is the visual depiction of some
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-7SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1 underlying data construct “containing embedded coding that provides some meaning or ‘structure’
2 to the document.” Ex. 8: Gray invalidity report at ¶ 274. Dr. Singh did not disagree in his
3 rebuttal report or in his deposition. See Ex. 9: Singh Dep. Vol. I at 80:15-81:1. In fact, during
4 his deposition, Dr. Singh testified that he understood the term “electronic document” – a term he
5 felt encompassed “structured electronic document” – to mean any “cohesive piece of
6 information.” Id. at 179:3-22.
7

When questioned as to what kinds of electronic documents would not qualify as a

8 structured electronic document, the only examples Dr. Singh could offer were a “music file” and a
9 “big cloud of unstructured points.”

Id. at 74:14-77:5.

Dr. Singh further testified that a

10 “structured electronic document is an electronic document which when – when parsed and – and
11 displayed by the computer has regions and structure that has some semantic meaning to the human
12 viewing it.” Id. at 72:11-15. When asked whether a structured electronic document required
13 “structure” that is visible on the screen, or “structure” that is understandable to the machine, Dr.
14 Singh testified that “[i]t could be either.” Id. at 80:6-13.
15

Dr. Singh’s broad view of the term “structured electronic document” is consistent with

16 testimony from the named inventors as well. Scott Forstall testified that the “structure” in a
17 structured electronic document could come in many “different forms.” Ex. 10: Forstall Dep. at
18 14:8-12.

Andre Boule testified that a Word document with embedded images would be a

19 structured electronic document.

Ex. 11: Boule Dep. at 42:7-20.

And, Richard Williamson

20 testified that he believed the following:
21
22
23

A structured document is something that has a visual structure with structurally
interesting components. And there are many examples of a structured document,
whether it be a .pdf document with an imposed structure or whether it be a web
page with a structure or an .rtf document. So a structured document is something
that, you know, a normal human can look at and identify areas of interest.

24 Ex. 12: Williamson Dep. at 67:4-11.
25

In a recent Declaration, Apple’s expert Dr. Singh suggested that the term “structured

26 electronic document” cannot include “a fixed set of applications in a predefined layout” unless
27 there is some “prior semantic association of its contents.” Ex. 13: Singh Decl. ISO Opp. to MSJ
28 ¶¶ 92, 95, 99. However, this opinion is not consistent with Dr. Singh’s expert reports and
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-8SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

1 deposition testimony. Indeed, when commenting on what he characterized as a “fixed set of
2 applications in a predefined layout” in his rebuttal report, Dr. Singh “express[ed] no opinion” as to
3 whether portions of such a layout “individually constitute ‘structured electronic documents’ within
4 the meaning of the ’163 patent.” Ex. 14: Singh Rebuttal Report ¶¶ 33 n.1, 30. In the summary
5 judgment context, a party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by a witness declaration
6 contradicting prior deposition testimony. Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th
7 Cir. 1991). In a post-discovery claim construction proceeding, the same rule should apply to an
8 expert opinion that contradicts the expert’s reports and deposition testimony.

Cf. In re

9 Omeprazole Patent Litig., 536 F.3d 1361, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that the district court
10 struck portion of expert testimony regarding opinion on meaning of a claim term that was not
11 disclosed in expert report and deposition testimony).
12
13

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

14 term “electronic document” in the ’381 patent, and Samsung’s proposed construction for the term
15 “structured electronic document” in the ’163 patent.
16
17 DATED: July 5, 2012
18
19
20
21
22

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-9SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF