Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al

Filing 146

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 4/2/2018. (ch, )

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
v.
LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:16-cv-1425-JRG-RSP

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 26, 2018, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 7,239,111, 7,791,319, 7,834,586, 7,893,655,
7,999,514, 8,232,766, and 8,624,550. Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the
hearing and in their claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 123, 127 & 130), 1 having considered
the intrinsic evidence, and having made subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence,
the Court hereby issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).

1

Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than the
page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless otherwise indicated.
-1-

Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 6
III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ........................................................................... 9
IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE FISCHER PATENTS .............. 10
A. “USB” ................................................................................................................................. 11
B. “USB adapter” and “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter” ............................................. 12
C. “USB controller” ................................................................................................................. 15
D. “USB connector” ................................................................................................................ 17
E. “USB communication path” ................................................................................................ 20
F. “abnormal USB data condition” and “abnormal USB data line condition” ........................ 22
G. “USB specification” ............................................................................................................ 27
H. “without USB enumeration” ............................................................................................... 29
I. “identification signal” ........................................................................................................... 33
J. “a mobile device” ................................................................................................................. 35
K. “microprocessor” ................................................................................................................ 36
L. “generate” and “generating” ................................................................................................ 37
M. “adapter”............................................................................................................................. 40
N. “means for receiving energy from a power socket”............................................................ 44
O. “means for regulating the received energy from the power socket to generate a power
output” ................................................................................................................................ 45
P. “means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that
the power socket is not a USB hub or host” ....................................................................... 46
Q. “means for coupling the power output and identification signal to the mobile device” ..... 48
V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’319 PATENT FAMILY ........... 50
R. “USB” ................................................................................................................................. 50
S. “battery charge controller” .................................................................................................. 51
T. “voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller”....................................................... 56
U. “power” ............................................................................................................................... 59
V. “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of [the] power available
from the battery charge controller” and “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives
a remainder of the received power” .................................................................................... 61
W. “reference voltage” and “reference voltage signal” ........................................................... 64
X. “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch” ........................................................................... 65

-2-

Y. “voltage sensing circuit” ..................................................................................................... 66
Z. “wherein the supply current passes through the external driving semiconductor rather
than through the battery charge controller” and “whereby load current passes through
the external driving semiconductor instead of the battery charge controller” .................... 70
AA. Preambles ......................................................................................................................... 71
BB. “means for receiving power from the USB port” ............................................................. 73
CC. “means for supplying the received power to the rechargeable battery and to the
portable device, wherein the supplied power is limited such that the rechargeable
battery and the portable device may not draw more than a pre-determined maximum
amount of current available from the USB port” ................................................................ 74
DD. “means for both isolating the rechargeable battery from the portable device and
controlling an amount of current supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the
portable device receives a pre-determined amount of the received power needed to
operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the received power” ........... 76
EE. “means for measuring a voltage drop across a battery charge controller providing
power to a portable device and an input of a switch in parallel” ........................................ 79
FF. “means for responding to the voltage drop across the battery charge controller by
modulating the switch to control a quantity of current supplied to a rechargeable
battery such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount of power to
operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of power available from the
battery charge controller” ................................................................................................... 81
VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’655 PATENT ........................... 83
GG. “USB” .............................................................................................................................. 83
HH. “USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit” ..................................................... 84
II. “power” ............................................................................................................................... 85
JJ. “reference voltage” ............................................................................................................. 87
KK. “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch” ........................................................................ 90
LL. “adjust” ............................................................................................................................. 91
VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 93

-3-

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (“Plaintiff” or
“Fundamental” or “FISI”) has alleged infringement of United States Patents No. 7,239,111 (“the
’111 Patent”), 7,791,319 (“the ’319 Patent”), 7,834,586 (“the ’586 Patent”), 7,893,655 (“the ’655
Patent”), 7,999,514 (“the ’514 Patent”), 8,232,766 (“the ’766 Patent”), and 8,624,550 (“the ’550
Patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”) by Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics
U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A.
LLC, LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei
Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff submits that the patents-in-suit relate to “battery charging
and power management.” Dkt. No. 123 at 1.
The ’111 Patent, titled “Universal Serial Bus Adapter for a Mobile Device,” issued on
July 3, 2007, and bears an earliest priority date of March 1, 2001. The ’586 Patent, ’766 Patent,
and ’550 Patent are continuations of the ’111 Patent, and these patents share the same
specification. See Dkt. No. 103 at 1 n.1. The Abstract of the ’111 Patent states:
An adapter for providing a source of power to a mobile device through an
industry standard port is provided. In accordance with one aspect of the
invention, the adapter comprises a plug unit, a power converter, a primary
connector, and an identification subsystem. The plug unit is operative to couple
the adapter to a power socket and operative to receive energy from the power
socket. The power converter is electrically coupled to the plug unit and is
operable to regulate the received energy from the power socket and to output a
power requirement to the mobile device. The primary connector is electrically
coupled to the power converter and is operative to couple to the mobile device
and to deliver the outputted power requirement to the mobile device. The
identification subsystem is electrically coupled to the primary connector and is
operative to provide an identification signal.
The ’319 Patent, titled “Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical Power
Supply,” issued on September 7, 2010, and bears a filing date of February 21, 2003. The ’514
-4-

Patent is a continuation of the ’319 Patent, and these patents share the same specification. See
Dkt. No. 103 at 1 n.2. The Abstract of the ’319 Patent states:
A battery charging circuit comprising: a semiconductor switch having an output
connected to a rechargeable battery; a battery charge controller for receiving
power from an external source, and supplying output power to a portable device
and the input of the semiconductor switch, the current output of the battery charge
controller being controllable; and a voltage sensing circuit for: measuring the
voltage drop across the battery charge controller; and responding to the voltage
drop across the battery charge controller by modulating the semiconductor switch
to reduce the quantity of current supplied to the rechargeable battery when the
voltage drop is too great; whereby the total power dissipated by the battery charge
controller is controlled, the portable device receiving the power it needs to operate
and the rechargeable battery receiving any additional available power.
The ’655 Patent, titled “Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices,” issued on
February 22, 2011, and bears an earliest priority date of December 13, 2005. The Abstract of the
’655 Patent states:
Charging and power supply for mobile devices is disclosed. A USB-compliant
charging and power supply circuit includes switch-mode battery charging
circuitry for receiving power from an external power source and for supplying
output power through an output node to an electronic system of an electronic
communication device and a battery. Battery isolation circuitry includes a
semiconductor switch connecting the output node to the battery. The battery
isolation circuitry senses voltage at the output node and variably restricts current
to the battery when the voltage is below a minimum voltage value by
operationally controlling the semiconductor switch as current passes through it.
During variable current restriction the electronic system is supplied required
power with said battery being supplied any additional available power.
Plaintiff has referred to these three groupings of the patents-in-suit as “the Fischer
Patents,” “the ’319 Patent Family,” and “the ’655 Patent,” respectively. The ’319 Patent Family
and the ’655 Patent, together, have sometimes been referred to as “the Veselic Patents.”
The Court has previously construed terms in the patents-in-suit in Fundamental
Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-CV-145,
Dkt. No. 140 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) (“Samsung”).

-5-

Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
discussion. Those preliminary constructions are noted below within the discussion for each
term.
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
(1996). “In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.”
Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841 (citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute,
courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this
subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of

-6-

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1312–13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the

-7-

specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
claim terms.” Id.
The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled

-8-

in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
S. Ct. 2120.
In general, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-suit are
“entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals of stare decisis and the goals
articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, even though stare decisis may not be applicable
per se.” Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779,
at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) (Davis, J.); see TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:12CV-180, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation)
(“[P]revious claim constructions in cases involving the same patent are entitled to substantial
weight, and the Court has determined that it will not depart from those constructions absent a
strong reason for doing so.”); see also Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 839–40 (“prior cases will sometimes be
binding because of issue preclusion and sometimes will serve as persuasive authority”) (citation
omitted); Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting “the
importance of uniformity in the treatment of a given patent”) (quoting Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996)).
III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
In their December 29, 2017 Joint 4-3 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, the
parties submitted that “[t]he parties have met and conferred regarding their proposed terms and
constructions, but have not agreed on constructions or partial constructions at this time.” Dkt.

-9-

No. 103 at 2. In their March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d), the
parties agreed that “USB enumeration” has its “[p]lain meaning in light of the Court’s
construction of ‘USB.’” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 2. Additional agreements are set forth in the
discussion of particular terms herein.
IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE FISCHER PATENTS 2
Defendants have presented “USB” as a distinct term. See Dkt. No. 127 at 1–5. Plaintiff’s
opening brief addresses terms that include “USB,” but Plaintiff has not separately addressed
“USB” as a distinct term. See Dkt. No. 123. Because Plaintiff has grouped its arguments as to
“USB” terms (see id. at 3–13), because Samsung construed “USB” as a distinct term (see
Samsung at 11–20 & 22), and because the parties here have agreed to the Samsung construction
for “USB” as noted below, the Court begins by addressing the term “USB.” 3

2

In its opening claim construction brief, Plaintiff submits: “For the terms USB port, USB
interface, and USB cable, Fundamental has adopted the Court’s construction from the Samsung
case that these terms be given the [sic, their] plain meaning. Because Defendants have asserted
that these terms need not be construed (Dkt. 103-5 at 19–20, 22), Fundamental is not addressing
them further in this brief.” Dkt. No. 123 at 4 n.4. In the parties’ March 9, 2018 Joint Claim
Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d), the parties submitted agreement as to “USB cable,”
“Universal Serial Bus interface,” and “USB interface”: “Plain meaning in light of the Court’s
construction of ‘USB.’” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 2. As to “USB port” in Claims 1 and 18 of the
’111 Patent, Defendants stated in the Joint Claim Construction Chart: “Limiting as part of
preamble.” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 2. Defendants also stated this position at the March 26,
2018 hearing, although no such argument appears in Defendants’ response brief. See Dkt.
No. 127 at 9. Instead, Defendants asserted in their brief merely that “to the extent that FISI
attempts to backtrack and argues to limit the construction to the[] purported plain meaning
without reference to ‘USB,’ that is improper and contrary to the Court’s [Samsung] ruling, and
thus should be rejected.” Id. In short, Defendants have not adequately supported any assertion
that the term “USB port” is limiting in the preambles of Claims 1 and 18 of the ’111 Patent. The
Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ assertion in that regard.
3

Defendants’ response brief also includes a global assertion that “[c]ollateral estoppel prevents
FISI from rearguing positions that were rejected [in Samsung], and the Court should maintain
those constructions here.” Dkt. No. 127 at 1. Defendants’ brief does not set forth any argument
to support this assertion. See Dkt. No. 127. Defendants have not demonstrated that any estoppel
applies.
- 10 -

A. “USB”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“USB should only be construed as part of the
term in which it appears; a Universal Serial
Bus is a type of serial bus. A serial bus is a
communication channel across which data, if
transmitted, is transmitted one bit at a time.”

“USB is an abbreviation for ‘Universal Serial
Bus,’ which is a computer standard
technology described in Universal Serial Bus
Specification Revision 2.0 and other versions
of this standard promulgated at the time of the
claimed invention.”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 82; id., Ex. B1 at 1. The parties submit that this term appears in
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, and 14–18 of the ’111 Patent, Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 of the ’586 Patent,
Claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–20, and 24 of the ’766 Patent, and Claims 1, 3–5, 10, and 12–14 of the
’550 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 1; see id., Ex. A1 at 82 (“passim”); Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1
at 1.
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “Universal Serial Bus as described in
Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this standard at the time
of the claimed invention.” Samsung at 22.
In the parties’ March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they
have agreed to the Samsung construction. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 1. Shortly before the start of
the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with a preliminary construction
identical to the Samsung construction. At the hearing, no party objected to this construction.
The Court therefore hereby construes “USB” to mean “Universal Serial Bus as
described in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this
standard at the time of the claimed invention.”

- 11 -

B. “USB adapter” and “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Not limiting; alternatively, “power supply
configured to supply power from a power
source to a USB device” 4

Limiting as part of preamble.
No construction necessary outside of “USB”
Alternatively:
“adapter specified in USB[] specification”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 15 & 17; Dkt. No. 123 at 4; Dkt. No. 127 at 9; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 3.
The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 17, and 18 of the ’111 Patent and
dependent claims. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 3; see Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 27 & 36; id., Ex. B1
at 17 (“’111: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18”); Dkt. No. 127 at 9 (“’111: all claims”).
In Samsung, the Court found that “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter,” which appears
only in the preambles of Claims 1 and 18 of the ’111 Patent, was not limiting. See Samsung
at 23–26. As to the term “USB adapter” in Claim 17 of the ’111 Patent, Samsung construed this
term to mean “power supply configured to supply power from a power source to a USB device.”
Samsung at 26.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary constructions: “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter” (’111 Pat.,
Cls. 1, 18): “Not limiting”; “USB adapter” (’111 Pat., Cl. 17): “power supply configured to
supply power from a power source to a USB device.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that this term is not limiting where it appears in only the preamble of a
claim. Dkt. No. 123 at 4. Alternatively, Plaintiff proposes the Samsung construction. Id. at 5.

4

Plaintiff previously proposed: “power adapter with a USB connector.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1
at 27 & 36.
- 12 -

Defendants respond that this term is limiting because it recites essential structure and is
described in the specification as being the invention. Dkt. No. 127 at 9. As to the meaning of
the term, Defendants argue that “the departures from the USB standard are reflected in other
claim limitations, and the patentee never acted as a lexicographer to redefine the term ‘USB
adapter’ itself.” Id. at 10.
Plaintiff replies that “Defendants do not identify any ‘essential structure’ signified by the
term that is not set forth in the body of the claims.” Dkt. No. 130 at 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff
proposes the Samsung construction. Id.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
(2) Analysis
As to Claims 1 and 18 of the ’111 Patent, the term “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’)
adapter” appears only in the preambles, and Samsung found that this term is merely descriptive
of the limitations expressly recited in the body of each claim. Samsung at 25. Defendants’
argument that “[w]ithout these components being part of a USB adapter, they would essentially
be a meaningless group of circuits scattered on a table” (Dkt. No. 127 at 10) is unpersuasive.
Claim 1 of the ’550 Patent recites an “adapter” rather than a “USB adapter,” and
Defendants cite this distinction as demonstrating that “[w]hen the patentee did not want to use a
standard ‘USB adapter’ as described in USB 2.0, it claimed an ‘adapter’ with only certain USB
features” (id.), but Defendants have not shown how this use of a different term in a claim of a
different (albeit related) patent is necessarily relevant. In sum, Defendants have not justified
departing from the Samsung analysis.
As to Claim 17 of the ’111 Patent, the term “USB adapter” appears only in the preamble
but is recited in relation to, for example, a “USB connector” that provides antecedent basis for

- 13 -

limitations set forth in the body of the claim, as discussed in Samsung. See Samsung at 24–25.
This term in Claim 17 of the ’111 Patent is therefore limiting.
As to the proper construction of this term in this claim, Samsung found that construing
“USB adapter” to mean an “adapter specified in USB” (as Defendants have essentially proposed
in the present case as well) would be inconsistent with the context in which the term “USB
adapter” is used in the claim and in the specification. See id. at 25–26. For example, the
specification discloses that power can be drawn from the USB adapter “without regard to the
USB specification”:
The USB adapter 100 contributes to a system wherein a device 10 that follows the
USB specification when coupled to a typical USB host via its USB port can be
informed that the USB adapter 100 has been coupled to the device 10 and that the
device 10 can now draw power without regard to the USB specification and the
USB specification imposed limits.
’111 Patent at 8:17–22 (emphasis added); see id. at 8:23–42; see also Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 11-1,
Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 at § 7.2.1.2.1 (“Over-current Protection”). 5
Defendants have not justified departing from the Samsung construction; the recited
adapter is a “USB” adapter not in terms of any definition set forth in a USB specification but
rather because, for example, power is provided through a USB connector. See ’111 Patent at
Cl. 17.
The Court therefore hereby construes these disputed terms as set forth in the following
chart:

5

Samsung also noted how the term is used in claims of related United States Patent No.
6,936,936 (“the ’936 Patent”). See Samsung at 26. The ’111 Patent resulted from a continuation
of the ’936 Patent.
- 14 -

Term

Construction

“Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter”
(’111 Patent, Claims 1, 18)

Not limiting

“USB adapter”
(’111 Patent, Claim 17)

“power supply configured to supply power
from a power source to a USB device”

C. “USB controller”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“a controller operable to communicate an
identification signal” 6

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).
No construction necessary outside of “USB” 7

Dkt. No. 123 at 6; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 1. Defendants submit that this term appears in
Claim 8 of the ’111 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 18; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 1.
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to have its plain meaning apart from the
Court’s construction of “USB.” Samsung at 31.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Plain meaning apart from the Court’s construction
of ‘USB.’”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “the USB controller is unique to the Fischer Patents and is not
specified in the USB specifications.” Dkt. No. 123 at 6.

6

Plaintiff previously proposed: “an apparatus responsible for controlling communications across
USB data lines or power delivery across USB power lines.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 80.
7

Defendants previously alternatively proposed: “controller specified in USB.” Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. B1 at 18.
- 15 -

Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s proposal is an attempt to “completely read out the
term ‘USB.’” Dkt. No. 127 at 9.
Plaintiff replies by reiterating that “[j]ust as the claimed USB adapters provide
functionality that differs from a USB 2.0 hub or host (or other USB device), the USB controller
within the claimed adapter is distinct from the hub and host controllers specified in USB 2.0.”
Dkt. No. 130 at 3. Plaintiff further submits that “[t]he hub and host controllers in USB 2.0, by
contrast, cannot generate an identification signal and cannot enable drawing power without
regard to USB 2.0 limits; rather, those controllers manage the same enumeration process that is
not required of the claimed USB controller.” Id.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term. In
particular, Plaintiff alternatively proposed that “USB controller” could be construed to mean “a
controller operable to communicate an identification signal to a USB device.”
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Plaintiff has presented here.
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 123, Ex. 10, Feb. 7, 2018 Fernald Decl. at ¶ 24 (“Because the claimed USB
adapter is not described anywhere in USB 2.0, and is capable of providing power without regard
to power limits imposed by the USB specification, a POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the
art)] would have understood that the claimed USB controller also need not comply with the USB
specification.”). For example, Plaintiff urged at the March 26, 2018 hearing that the “USB
controller” is not like the “hub controller” or “host controller” set forth in the USB 2.0
specification because the “USB controller” need not have the functionality of such a “hub
controller” or “host controller.” Plaintiff’s argument merely presents its proposed conclusion in
the guise of a supporting rationale. In other words, Plaintiff merely restates the premise that is in

- 16 -

dispute, namely as to whether the term “USB” limits the nature of the “controller” to being in
accordance with the USB 2.0 specification.
The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same reasons set forth
in Samsung. See Samsung at 31 (“the written description is consistent with understanding the
recited ‘USB controller’ as a controller that accords with the USB standard but that is utilized in
a purportedly inventive manner”). Unlike for the term “USB adapter,” “controller” is a term that
is used in the USB 2.0 specification, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the patentee used the
term “USB controller” in a manner contrary to the USB 2.0 specification.
The Court therefore hereby construes “USB controller” to have its plain meaning apart
from the Court’s construction of “USB.”
D. “USB connector”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“a component for electrically coupling to a
USB device, hub, host or adapter” 8

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).
No construction necessary outside of “USB” 9

Dkt. No. 123 at 7; Dkt. No. 127 at 5; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 1. The parties submit that this term
appears in Claims 1–17 of the ’111 Patent and Claims 9 and 12 of the ’586 Patent. Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. A1 at 1 & 36; see id., Ex. B1 at 16 (“’111: 1–3, 6–8, 12, 14, 16–17”; “’586: 9 and 12”); see
also Dkt. No. 127 at 5 (“’111: 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17; ’586: 9, 12”).

8

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a component that includes pins for Vbus and Gnd power, and
D+ and D- communications and that connects to a USB device, hub, host or adapter.” Dkt.
No. 103, Ex. A1 at 1 & 36.
9

Defendants previously alternatively proposed: “connector specified in USB.” Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. B1 at 16.
- 17 -

In Samsung, the Court construed this term to have its plain meaning in light of the
Court’s construction of “USB.” Samsung at 22.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Plain meaning apart from the Court’s construction
of ‘USB.’”
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues: “As with USB controller, USB 2.0 does not describe a USB connector
for use with a USB adapter. The reason is obvious – there is no USB adapter described in the
USB 2.0 specification.” Dkt. No. 123 at 7. Plaintiff also submits that “USB specifications
expressly allow a device to have a nonstandard USB connector.” Id. at 9.
Defendants respond that “[t]he claims use the term ‘USB connector’ in its ordinary sense
with no special meaning suggested.” Dkt. No. 127 at 5. Defendants urge that Plaintiff’s
proposals should be rejected because “[t]he word ‘connector’ itself, and the context in which it is
used in the claims, connotes physical (not just electrical) connectivity.” Id. at 6. Defendants also
argue that Plaintiff’s reliance upon so-called “captive cable assemblies” and “vendor-specific”
connectors is unavailing because “[t]he USB standard nowhere defines ‘USB connector’ to
encompass these vendor-specific (i.e., non-USB) connectors.” Id. at 8.
Plaintiff replies that “[a]lthough USB 2.0 specifies connectors for devices, hosts, and
hubs, it does not specify a connector for a USB adapter (because it does not specify a USB
adapter).” Dkt. No. 130 at 3. Plaintiff urges that no specific form factor is required and that
“[a]ny component that can electrically couple the USB adapter to the Vbus, Gnd, D+, and D-

- 18 -

pins of a USB device (for supplying power and transmitting an identification signal) is
sufficient.” Id. at 4.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Plaintiff has presented here.
See Dkt. No. 123 at 8 (“The intrinsic record, however, references no physical requirements for
the USB connector other than the need for Vbus, Gnd, D+ and D- pins to enable power and
identification signals to be carried.”); see also id. at 9–10 (“compatibility of the USB interface is
not about form factor, it is about common communication protocols”).
The Court accordingly reaches the same conclusions here as in Samsung for the same
reasons set forth in Samsung. See Samsung at 20–22 (“the written description uses this term to
refer to a physical connector”); see also id. at 14–20 (discussing case law); ’111 Patent at 6:15–
17 (“Coupled to the USB port 18 is a USB connector 54. The USB connector 54 is the physical
component that couples the USB port to the outside world.”). For example, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that an interpretation of “USB adapter” that is not defined by USB specifications
necessarily imparts a broader meaning to the “USB connector.” As another example, although a
cable might at one end have a connector defined in the USB 2.0 standard and at the other end
have a “vendor-specific” connector, Plaintiff has not shown that such “vendor-specific”
connectors would necessarily then be referred to as “USB” connectors. See Samsung at 21.
The Court therefore hereby construes “USB connector” to have its plain meaning apart
from the Court’s construction of “USB.”

- 19 -

E. “USB communication path”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Not limiting as part of preamble

USB communication path is limiting. 10

“path over which signals across USB data
pins can be received or transmitted”

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).
No construction necessary outside of “USB” 11

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 48 & 59–60; id., Ex. B1 at 15; Dkt. No. 123 at 10; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1
at 1–2. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, 19, 20, and 24 of the
’766 Patent and Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, and 14 of the ’550 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 6; see
Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 1–2; see also Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 48 (“’766 all claims; [’]550 all
claims”) & 59–60 (“’766, claim 17”).
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to have its plain meaning apart from the
Court’s construction of “USB.” Samsung at 31.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Plain meaning apart from the Court’s construction
of ‘USB.’”

10

Defendants have asserted: “‘USB communication path’ as recited in claim 17 of the ’766
patent is limited [sic, limiting] because it provides an antecedent basis for the term ‘the path’.”
Dkt. No. 127 at 8 n.5. Plaintiff’s briefing does not address this issue. See Dkt. No. 123 at 10;
see also Dkt. No. 130 at 3. To whatever extent Plaintiff is maintaining that the term “USB
communication path” is not a limitation in Claim 17 of the ’766 Patent, the Court hereby
expressly rejects Plaintiff’s position as unsupported.
11

Defendants previously alternatively proposed: “communication path specified in USB.” Dkt.
No. 103, Ex. B1 at 6.
- 20 -

(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that this term is not limited by the USB specification because “[w]hen on
the adapter side, the USB communication path need not participate in enumeration, need not
perform any normal USB communication and may transmit only abnormal USB data
conditions.” Dkt. No. 123 at 10.
Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s proposal is an attempt to “completely read out the
term ‘USB.’” Dkt. No. 127 at 9.
Plaintiff replies that “the adapter-side USB communication path merely provides a path
for transmitting or receiving signals (such as an abnormal USB data condition) across USB data
pins. The USB communication path in the adapter need not provide a path for normal USB
communications or enumeration, and thus deviates from the communication path specified in
USB 2.0.” Dkt. No. 130 at 3.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Plaintiff has presented here.
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 123, Ex. 10, Feb. 7, 2018 Fernald Decl. at ¶ 24 (“[T]he specification teaches
. . . that a USB adapter may be one incapable of undergoing enumeration, and hence a POSITA
would have understood that the claimed USB communication path need not be required to have
the full data exchange capacity as specified generally in a USB specification.”).
The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same reasons set forth
in Samsung. See Samsung at 30–31 (“[A]ny question as to whether an instrumentality accused of
being a claimed ‘adapter’ has a ‘USB communication path’ is a question of fact for the finder of
fact to evaluate in light of the relevant USB standards.”); see also Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 5, U.S.

- 21 -

Provisional Application No. 60/273,021 at 7 (FISI00019360) (“The traditional communications
mode of operation of a USB peripheral is described in great detail in the current USB standard
and is not discussed presently as it is obvious to a person skilled in the art.”). Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that an interpretation of “USB adapter” that is not defined by USB specifications
necessarily imparts a broader meaning to the “USB communication path.” Unlike for the term
“USB adapter,” Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the patentee used the term “USB
communication path” in a manner contrary to the USB 2.0 specification.
The Court therefore hereby construes “USB communication path” to have its plain
meaning apart from the Court’s construction of “USB.”
F. “abnormal USB data condition” and “abnormal USB data line condition”
“abnormal USB data condition [detected at said USB communication path]”
(’766 Patent, Cls. 1–23)
“abnormal data condition on said USB communication path”
(’550 Patent, Cls. 4, 13, and dependent claims)
Plaintiff’s Proposed

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Construction
“condition on the USB
communication path that is not
defined as a valid USB data
condition” 12

“abnormal data condition” and “abnormal USB data
condition”:
“an invalid or illegal data condition specified in
USB”
“abnormal data condition on said USB communication
path”:
“an invalid or illegal data condition on said USB
communication path specified in USB”

12

Plaintiff previously proposed: “condition detected at the USB communication path that is not
defined as a valid (or legal) data condition by the USB specification.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1
at 71 & 74.
- 22 -

“abnormal USB data line condition on said D+ line and said D- line”
(’766 Patent, Cls. 5, 13)
“abnormal data line condition on said D+ line and said D- line”
(’550 Patent, Cls. 6, 15) 13
Plaintiff’s Proposed

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Construction
“condition on the D+ line and Dline that is not defined as a valid
USB data condition” 14

“abnormal data line condition” and “abnormal USB data
line condition”:
“an invalid or illegal data line condition specified in
USB”
“abnormal data line condition on said D+ line and said
D- line”:
“an invalid or illegal data line condition on said D+
line and D- line specified in USB”

Dkt. No. 102, Ex. A1 at 71 & 74; id., Ex. B1 at 8–9; Dkt. No. 123 at 10; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1
at 4.
In Samsung, the Court construed “abnormal USB data condition [detected at said USB
communication path]” and “abnormal data condition on said USB communication path” to mean
“condition on the USB communication path that is not defined as a valid USB data condition” (in
light of the Court’s construction of “USB”). Samsung at 33.

13

In the parties’ December 29, 2017 Joint 4-3 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
Plaintiff also presented “abnormal signal [on the USB communication path]” as a disputed term
in Claim 19 of the ’766 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 74 (square brackets Plaintiff’s).
Defendants similarly presented the term “abnormal signal.” Id., Ex. B1 at 8. Because the term
“abnormal signal” is not addressed in the parties’ briefing, the Court does not herein construe
that term. See Dkt. Nos. 123, 127 & 130.
14

Plaintiff previously proposed: “condition detected at the D+ line and D-line that is not defined
as a valid (or legal) data condition by the USB specification.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 74–75.
- 23 -

Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction for each the two above-charted groups of disputed
terms, respectively: “condition on the USB communication path that is not defined as a valid
USB data condition”; and “condition on the D+ line and D- line that is not defined as a valid
USB data condition.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause the signal distinguishes a normal USB hub/host from an
alternate power source, the signal need not be defined as illegal or invalid by USB 2.0, it only
needs to be one that it [sic, is] not expected from a USB hub/host, i.e., that the USB specification
does not define as valid or legal.” Dkt. No. 123 at 11.
Defendants respond that their proposal “is consistent with the claim language, which, for
example, recites an affirmative limitation that the data line condition be an ‘abnormal USB data
line condition.’” Dkt. No. 127 at 11–12. Defendants also cite prosecution history in which “the
patentees amended their claims to add the ‘abnormal’ limitation instead of ‘identification signal,’
arguing that the new claims were different from the related patents.” Id. at 12.
Plaintiff replies that “Defendants’ proposed construction improperly limits the claims to
an exemplary embodiment.” Dkt. No. 130 at 5. Plaintiff also argues that “Defendants’
prosecution history argument similarly fails because the patentees did not rely on the ‘abnormal’
limitation to overcome a rejection.” Id.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to these
terms.

- 24 -

(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
here. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 127 at 12 (arguing that “[b]ecause the ‘abnormal’ signaling is the
essence of the invention,” it should be limited to the “objective boundar[ies]” set forth in the
written description and in the USB 2.0 specification). The Court reaches the same conclusion
here as in Samsung for the same reasons set forth in Samsung. See Samsung at 33.
The authorities cited by Defendants do not compel otherwise. See Dkt. No. 127 at 12
(citing Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
SafeTCare Mfg., Inc. v. Tele-Made, Inc., 497 F.3d 1262, 1269–70 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The
inventor makes clear that this attribute of the invention is important in distinguishing the
invention over the prior art.”); Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Further, the ’766 Patent prosecution history cited by Defendants did not involve merely
replacing “identification signal” with an “abnormal” condition, as Defendants appear to imply.
See Dkt. No. 127 at 12; see also id., Ex. 21, Feb. 13, 2012 Amendment at 6 (replacing all but
four words of application claim 1); id., Ex. 18, Mar. 28, 2012 Notice of Allowance, Reasons for
Allowance at 2. The prosecution history thus does not set forth any disclaimer or otherwise
provide any context that would warrant imposing the narrow interpretation proposed here by
Defendants. See Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“As
a basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice
function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive statements made
during prosecution.”) (emphasis added).

- 25 -

Finally, to whatever extent Defendants are maintaining that the Samsung construction
renders the claims indefinite, Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating
indefiniteness. See, e.g., Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (“Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”) (citation omitted).
The Court therefore hereby construes these disputed terms as set forth in the following
chart:
Term

Construction

“abnormal USB data condition [detected at
said USB communication path]”

“condition on the USB communication
path that is not defined as a valid USB data
condition”

“abnormal data condition on said USB
communication path”
“abnormal USB data line condition on said
D+ line and said D- line”

“condition on the D+ line and D- line that
is not defined as a valid USB data
condition”

“abnormal data line condition on said D+
line and said D- line”

- 26 -

G. “USB specification”
“[configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to] at least one
associated condition specified in a USB specification” 15 (’550 Patent, Cl. 1 and dependent
claims)
“[configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to] at least one USB
Specification imposed limit” 16 (’550 Patent, Cl. 10 and dependent claims)
“[a charging subsystem enabled to draw current/power unrestricted by] at least one
predetermined USB Specification limit” 17 (’766 Patent, Cls. 1 and 9 and dependent claims)
“[drawing current in excess of] at least one USB Specification defined limit” 18 (’766
Patent, Cl. 17 and dependent claims)
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

Indefinite

Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary

15

Plaintiff previously proposed that “at least one associated condition specified in a USB
specification” be construed to mean: “at least one condition associated with supplying current in
a Universal Serial Bus specification; the remaining term requires no additional construction at
this time (i.e., plain and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence).” Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. A1 at 37.
16

Plaintiff previously proposed that “at least one USB Specification imposed limit” be construed
to mean: “at least one Universal Serial Bus 2.0 Specification current supply limit; the remaining
term requires no additional construction at this time (i.e., plain and ordinary meaning in light of
the intrinsic evidence).” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 46.
17

Plaintiff previously proposed that “at least one predetermined USB Specification limit” be
construed to mean: “At least one limit related to current/power draw defined by the Universal
Serial Bus 2.0 Specification that is determined beforehand.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 47.
18

Plaintiff previously proposed that “at least one USB Specification defined limit” be construed
to mean: “At least one limit related to current draw defined by Universal Serial Bus 2.0
Specification.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 47.
- 27 -

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 37 & 46–47; id., Ex. B1 at 10–12 & 23–25; Dkt. No. 123 at 11; Dkt.
No. 135, Ex. A1 at 3.
In Samsung, the Court rejected an indefiniteness challenge as to these terms and
construed them to have their plain meaning. Samsung at 38.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Plain meaning (Not indefinite).”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits that “the patent makes clear that the relevant limits are what is allotted
to a specific device as power flows to it . . . .” Dkt. No. 123 at 11 (citing ’111 Patent at 8:11–16).
Defendants respond that “these terms are defined by disregarding ‘at least one’ USB 2.0
current limit,” “[b]ut the USB 2.0 standard itself already requires that, so the terms make no
sense.” Dkt. No. 127 at 11.
Plaintiff replies that “[i]t would be clear to a POSA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)]
that the corresponding claim limitations permit disregarding or violating the applicable limit
governing the amount of current or power a USB device may draw in a particular condition or
state.” Dkt. No. 130 at 4. Plaintiff submits that Defendants’ argument should be rejected
because “[a] limit cannot be ‘disregarded’ when it is not applicable . . . .” Id. at 4–5. Finally,
Plaintiff argues:
The fact that subsequent revisions of the USB specification may exceed USB 2.0
power limits does not establish indefiniteness—it merely demonstrates that others
recognized the benefits of the claimed invention and incorporated it into the
specification. If a device may draw power without regard to USB 2.0 limits, this
limitation is met—even if the device implements a subsequent revision of the
specification that permits higher power draw.
Id. at 5.

- 28 -

At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to these
terms.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
here. See Samsung at 36–38. The Court reaches the same conclusions here as in Samsung for
substantially the same reasons set forth in Samsung. See id.
The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments and
hereby construes these terms to have their plain meaning.
H. “without USB enumeration”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary19

“without the occurrence of any of the steps of
USB enumeration”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 7 & 21; Dkt. No. 123 at 12; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5. The parties
submit that this term appears in Claims 3, 11, and 24 of the ’766 Patent and Claims 3 and 12 of
the ’550 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 76; id., Ex. B1 at 7; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5.
This term was not presented as a disputed term in Samsung.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “without the occurrence of all of the steps of USB
enumeration.”

19

Plaintiff previously proposed as follows regarding “[said enabling of the charging subsystem
occurs without] USB enumeration” and “[said current is supplied without] USB enumeration”:
USB enumeration: identification and assignment of unique addresses to attached
USB devices. The remaining term requires no construction at this time (i.e., plain
and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence).
Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 76 (square brackets Plaintiff’s).
- 29 -

(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “[a] POSA would have understood that ‘without USB enumeration’
means that not all steps of enumeration are performed.” Dkt. No. 123 at 12 (emphasis added).
Likewise, Plaintiff urges that “no embodiment in the patent requires the a [sic] device to draw
power without initiating enumeration, as Defendants’ construction would require.” Id. at 13.
Defendants respond that “[t]he specification repeatedly states that the mobile device
foregoes participation in the enumeration steps in their entirety after the detection of an
identification signal.” Dkt. No. 127 at 14 (citing ’550 Patent at 2:8–15, 9:16–19, 9:44–46, 9:65–
10:4 & Fig. 3). Defendants also argue that “FISI does not – because it cannot – point to any
disclosure where the identification signal is sent/received after some enumeration steps.” Dkt.
No. 127 at 14.
Plaintiff replies that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘without USB enumeration’ means that the
process of USB enumeration is not performed,” and “[i]f any step of the enumeration process is
not performed, then there has been no enumeration.” Dkt. No. 130 at 6. Plaintiff emphasizes
that “Defendants cite no disclosure that prohibits the invention from performing any steps of
enumeration.” Id.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
Claims 1 and 3 of the ’766 Patent, for example, recite (emphasis added):
1. A mobile device, comprising:
a USB communication path; and
a charging subsystem enabled to draw current unrestricted by at least one
predetermined USB Specification limit, said enablement being responsive to an
abnormal USB data condition detected at said USB communication path.

- 30 -

***
3. The device of claim 1, wherein said enabling of the charging subsystem occurs
without USB enumeration.
The parties appear to agree that USB enumeration involves multiple steps. Defendants’
proposal, that “without USB enumeration” should be construed as precluding the performance of
any step that is involved in USB enumeration, is contrary to the open-ended structure of these
claims. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are
essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
claim.”). Indeed, it seems self-evident, or least reasonably plain, that performance of less than
all of the steps of “USB enumeration” would not be “USB enumeration.” A useful analogy in
this regard is that if a method claim recited “USB enumeration” as a limitation, and an accused
instrumentality performed less than all of the steps of “USB enumeration,” then the accused
instrumentality would not infringe. 20 Cf. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1219
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A method claim is directly infringed when someone practices every step of the
patented method.”).
Turning to the specification, the parties have cited disclosures regarding operations that
can be carried out “without waiting for enumeration”:
When a USB adapter 100 is connected to a mobile device 10, the identification
subsystem 108 of the USB adapter 100 preferably provides an identification
signal to the mobile device 10 to notify the mobile device 10 that the device 10 is
connected to a power source that is not subject to the power limits imposed by the
USB specification. Preferably, the mobile device 10 is programmed to recognize
the identification signal and therefore recognizes that an identification signal has
been transmitted by the USB adapter 100. After recognizing a valid identification

20

For purposes of this analogy, the Court here uses the word “infringe” to refer to direct, literal
infringement (rather than joint infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents).
- 31 -

signal, the mobile device 10 draws power through the USB adapter 100 without
waiting for enumeration or charge negotiation.
’111 Patent at 9:3–14 (emphasis added); see id. at 9:39–42. Defendants have also cited
disclosures in the specification regarding power sources “that are not capable of participating in
enumeration” as well as mobile devices that “can forego the enumeration process and charge
negotiation process and immediately draw energy from the USB power adapter 100 at a desired
rate.” Id. at 1:59–67 & 9:60–65.
On balance, Defendants have not identified any disclosure in the specification that rises
to the level of a lexicography or disclaimer that would warrant precluding performing any step of
USB enumeration. See, e.g., GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1310
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“This is simply not a case where the patentee has disavowed the plain meaning
of the term . . . .); id. at 1309–10 (collecting cases); Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d
509, 513 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“To find disavowal of claim scope through disparagement of a
particular feature, we ask whether the specification goes well beyond expressing the patentee’s
preference . . . [such that] its repeated derogatory statements about [a particular embodiment]
reasonably may be viewed as a disavowal.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);
id. at 517 (“There is no doubt a high bar to finding disavowal of claim scope through
disparagement of the prior art in the specification.”).
The Court therefore hereby construes “without USB enumeration” to mean “without
the occurrence of all of the steps of USB enumeration.”

- 32 -

I. “identification signal”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

“signal that informs the mobile device that the
USB adapter is not limited by the power
limits imposed by the USB specification”

“signal that identifies a power source type” 21
Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 3; Dkt. No. 123 at 13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5. The parties submit that
this term appears in Claims 1, 6, 17, and 18 of the ’111 Patent, Claims 8–13 of the ’586 Patent,
and Claims 17 and 19 of the ’766 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 3; see Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1
at 5; see also id., Ex. A1 at 85; Dkt. No. 127 at 13 (“’111, ’586: all claims; ’766: 17 and 19”).
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “signal that identifies a power source
type.” Samsung at 41.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “signal that identifies a power source type.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ construction focuses on a single intended use of the
identification signal and renders other claim limitations redundant.” Dkt. No. 123 at 13.
Plaintiff also argues claim differentiation as to Claims 51, 55, and 70 of the parent ’936 Patent. 22
Id. at 13–14.

21

Plaintiff previously proposed: “an electrical signal that provides information regarding an
adapter power type or a power source type.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 85.
22

The ’111 Patent is a continuation of United States Patent No. 6,936,936 (“the ’936 Patent”).
- 33 -

Defendants respond that their proposed construction is “[t]he sole ‘identification’
contemplated in the specification for this signal” and is “the essence of the invention.” Dkt.
No. 127 at 14.
Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ proposal improperly limits the term to a single function
because “[t]he Fischer patents expressly contemplate that the identification signal may perform
other functions, such as differentiating between types of power sources.” Dkt. No. 130 at 5–6.
Further, Plaintiff urges that “Defendants’ argument that FISI’s construction would ‘capture USB
enumeration’ (DBr. [(Dkt. No. 127) at] 14) fails because enumeration is a process that entails
more than merely identifying a power source type.” Dkt. No. 130 at 6.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term. In
particular, Defendants urged that the “identification signal” must convey how much current is
safe to draw. Defendants concluded that it is not enough to convey merely some information
about a power source, such as whether it uses alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC).
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
here. See Samsung at 39–41. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the
same reasons set forth in Samsung. See id. The absence of an assertion of the ’936 Patent in the
present case, noted here by Defendants, does not significantly affect the applicability of the
Samsung analysis in the present case.
The Court therefore hereby construes “identification signal” to mean “signal that
identifies a power source type.”

- 34 -

J. “a mobile device”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Not limiting 23

The preambles are limiting.

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 15; Dkt. No. 123 at 14; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 7. Plaintiff submits that
this term appears in Claims 1, 9, and 24 of the ’766 Patent and dependent claims. Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. A1 at 82.
In Samsung, the Court found as to Claims 1, 9, and 24 of the ’766 Patent that the
preamble term “a mobile device” is not limiting. Samsung at 42 & 44.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “The preambles of Claims 1, 9, and 24 of the ’766
Patent are not limiting.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits that the term “mobile device” provides no antecedent basis, was not
relied upon during prosecution, and “does not affect the claim structure because the claim body
provides a complete invention composed of at least a USB communication and a charging
subsystem of prescribed features.” Dkt. No. 123 at 14.
Defendants’ response brief does not appear to address these terms. See Dkt. No. 127.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to this
term.

23

Plaintiff previously proposed: “Not a limit, but if deemed a limit, no additional construction at
this time (i.e., plain and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence).” Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. A1 at 82–83.
- 35 -

(2) Analysis
Particularly in light of the apparent absence of any argument by Defendants as to this
term, the Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same reasons set forth in
Samsung. See Samsung at 41–44; see also Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522
F.3d 1279, 1288–89 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussing legal principles regarding preambles).
The Court therefore hereby finds that “a mobile device” in the preambles of Claims 1, 9,
and 24 of the ’766 Patent is not limiting.
K. “microprocessor”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. If construed, “IC
with capability to interpret and execute coded
instructions.”

“a CPU on a single chip”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 90; id., Ex. B1 at 5; Dkt. No. 123 at 14; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5. The
parties submit that this term appears in Claim 11 of the ’586 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 90;
id., Ex. B1 at 5; Dkt. No. 127 at 13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5.
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “a CPU on a single chip.” Samsung
at 47.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “a CPU on a single chip.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “Defendants seek to improperly limit the claims to preferred
embodiments and fail to acknowledge that a microprocessor may be located on ICs that would
not be considered a CPU but that can interpret and execute programmed/coded instructions.”
Dkt. No. 123 at 14.

- 36 -

Defendants respond that they agree with the Samsung construction, which Defendants
submit is consistent with the specification, extrinsic evidence, and case law. Dkt. No. 127 at 13.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Plaintiff has presented here.
See Samsung at 45–47. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same
reasons set forth in Samsung. See id.
The Court therefore hereby construes “microprocessor” to mean “a CPU on a single
chip.”
L. “generate” and “generating”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary.

“to produce” / “producing”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 106; id., Ex. B1 at 4; Dkt. No. 123 at 15; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5. The
parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1 and 17 of the ’111 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1
at 106; id., Ex. B1 at 4; Dkt. No. 127 at 15; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5–6.
These terms were not presented as disputed terms in Samsung.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary constructions: “provide” and “providing.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “by Defendants’ own admission, the substitution of the claim terms
with their alleged synonym alters the scope of the claims, which is improper.” Dkt. No. 123
at 15.
- 37 -

Defendants respond that “FISI argues for plain meaning to distort and broaden the term to
read out the inherent requirement of this term.” Dkt. No. 127 at 15.
Plaintiff replies that whereas the term “generate” is unambiguous and easily
understandable, Defendants’ proposal relies on a dictionary definition that has no connection to
the intrinsic record. Dkt. No. 130 at 6 (citation omitted). Plaintiff also argues that “[e]ven if
exemplary embodiments use an active mechanism for generating an identification signal, the
claims cannot be so limited absent a clear disclaimer.” Id. at 6–7.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to these terms.
Plaintiff had no objection to the Court’s preliminary constructions of these terms as meaning
“provide” and “providing.”
(2) Analysis
Claims 1 and 17 of the ’111 Patent recite that a power output is generated from received
energy or received power (emphasis added):
1. A Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) adapter for providing power to a mobile
device through a USB port, comprising:
a plug unit configured to receive energy from a power socket;
a power converter coupled to the plug unit, the power converter being
configured to regulate the received energy from the power socket to generate a
power output;
an identification subsystem configured to generate an identification signal,
wherein the identification signal is configured to indicate to the mobile device that
the power socket is not a USB host or hub; and
a USB connector coupled to the power converter and the identification
subsystem, the USB connector being configured to couple the power output and
the identification signal to the mobile device.
***
17. A method for providing energy to a mobile device using a USB adapter that
includes a USB connector for coupling the USB adapter to the mobile device,
comprising:
receiving a power input from a power socket;
generating a regulated DC power output from the power input;
- 38 -

generating an identification signal that is configured to indicate to the
mobile device that the power socket is not a USB host or hub;
providing the identification signal on one or more data pins of the USB
connector; and
providing the power output on one or more power pins of the USB
connector.
Although Claim 17 uses the term “providing” in addition to “generating,” the limitations
are distinguishable from one another based on other language rather than any apparent difference
in meaning between “generating” and “providing.” Instead, the specification uses the words
“provides” and “generates” interchangeably:
The identification subsystem 108 provides an identification signal to the mobile
device 10 that the power source is not a USB limited source. The identification
signal could be the communication of a single voltage on one or more of the USB
data lines, different voltages on the two data lines, a series of pulses or voltage
level changes, or other types of electrical signals. The identification subsystem
108 that generates the identification signal could have multiple types of
configurations. In one embodiment, the identification subsystem 108 comprises a
hard-wired connection of a single voltage level to both data lines. In another
embodiment, the identification subsystem 108 comprises a USB controller that is
operable to communicate an identification signal to the mobile device. Additional
embodiments are contemplated. The identification subsystem 108 may optionally
be configured to have the capability of electrically connecting or disconnecting
the power output from the power converter 104 from the USB connector 102
and/or to connect or disconnect any data inputs from the USB adapter 100 to the
USB connector 102.
’111 Patent at 8:23–42 (emphasis added); see id. at 9:21–39. Any presumption of a difference in
meaning between “generating” and “providing” is thus rebutted. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v.
Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of
any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims
connotes different meanings.”) (emphasis added).
The specification thus demonstrates that the patentee used the term “generate” to mean
“provide.” The dictionary definitions submitted by Defendants do not compel otherwise. See
Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 22, Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus 265 (2d ed. 2002)
- 39 -

(“1[.] to produce (offspring); beget”; “2[.] to bring into being”); see also id., Ex. 23, Oxford
Paperback Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Wordpower Guide 373 (2001) (“1[.] cause to arise or
come about. 2[.] produce (energy).”). Likewise, Defendants have not adequately supported their
suggestion of requiring an “active mechanism” (Dkt. No. 127 at 15) and, whatever meaning of
that phrase is intended by Defendants, the breadth of the above-reproduced disclosure weighs
against imposing any “active mechanism” requirement.
Finally, as to Plaintiff’s proposal of a plain meaning construction, the International
Rectifier case cited by Plaintiff is inapplicable. See Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d
1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding error where district court used a dictionary definition of a
synonym of the disputed term rather than a definition of the disputed term itself). Instead, “some
construction of the disputed claim language will assist the jury to understand the claims.” TQP
Dev., LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., No. 2:08-CV-471, 2012 WL 1940849, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
May 29, 2012) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation).
The Court therefore hereby construes the disputed terms as set forth in the following
chart:
Term

Construction

“generate”

“provide”

“generating”

“providing”

M. “adapter”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Not limiting as part of preamble;
alternatively, plain and ordinary meaning; no
construction necessary

Adapter is limiting
“power adapter”

- 40 -

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 18; Dkt. No. 123 at 15; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5; see Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. A1 at 84. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, and 14–18 of the
’111 Patent and Claims 1, 3–8, 10, and 12–17 of the ’550 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 18; see
Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5; see also id., Ex. A1 at 84 (“’550, all claims”); Dkt. No. 127 at 12
(“’111/’550: all claims”).
In Samsung, this term was not presented as a distinct disputed term.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary constructions: “Plain meaning (As to the ’111 Patent, this term
appears as part of the larger terms ‘USB adapter’ and ‘Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) adapter,’
which are addressed above.) (As to the ’550 Patent, this term appears in the bodies of the claims
and is limiting.).”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues: “Defendants’ proposed construction is no construction at all as it
incorporates the very term to be construed into the construction. Defendants therefore indirectly
concede that the meaning for ‘adapter’ is clear and no further interpretation is required.” Dkt.
No. 123 at 15.
Defendants respond that “[l]ike ‘USB adapter,’ the term ‘adapter’ is limiting because
(i) it provides an essential structural element and ‘the framework of the invention’; [and]
(ii) provides an antecedent basis in the claims.” Dkt. No. 127 at 13 (citations omitted).
Defendants argue that “‘[a]dapter’ is used within the specifications to refer to a particular adapter
– a ‘power adapter,’” and Defendants submit that Plaintiff’s previous proposal for “USB
adapter” (“power adapter with USB connector”) is consistent with Defendants’ proposal as to
“adapter.” Id. (citing Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 27).

- 41 -

Plaintiff replies that “[t]he term ‘adapter’ in the ’550 preambles . . . [is] not limiting for
the same reasons” as for the above-discussed “USB adapter” term in the ’111 Patent. Dkt.
No. 130 at 2 n.1. Plaintiff also argues that “Defendants’ construction for ‘adapter’ is further
improper because it merely restates the claim term with additional unrecited limitations.” Id.
at 2.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
As to the ’111 Patent, this term appears as part of the larger terms “USB adapter” and
“Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter,” which are addressed above. See Samsung at 22–26.
The independent claims of the ’550 Patent recite (emphasis added):
1. An adapter comprising:
a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path,
said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line without
regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification.
***
10. An adapter comprising:
a USB VBUS line and a USB communication path,
said adapter configured to supply current on the VBUS line without
regard to at least one USB Specification imposed limit.
Because the term “adapter” appears in the bodies of these claims, the term “adapter” is a
limitation of these claims.
As to the proper construction, Defendants’ have cited introductory statements in the
Background section of the written description. See ’550 Patent at 1:46–48 (“This invention
relates generally to power adapters. More particularly, the invention relates to power adapters
for use with mobile devices.”). On balance, Defendants’ reliance on these statements is

- 42 -

unavailing. Defendants’ proposal of “power adapter” would tend to confuse rather than clarify
the scope of these claims, which already recite “said adapter configured to supply current on the
VBUS line.”
The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposed construction. No
further construction is necessary, particularly in light of the context provided by surrounding
claim language as to how the adapter is “configured.” See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed
meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee
covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory
exercise in redundancy.”); see also O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d
1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe
every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Unlike O2 Micro, where the court failed to resolve the
parties’ quarrel, the district court rejected Defendants’ construction.”); ActiveVideo Networks,
Inc. v. Verizon Commcn’s, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Summit 6, LLC v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 802 F.3d 1283, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Court accordingly hereby construes “adapter” to have its plain meaning.

- 43 -

N. “means for receiving energy from a power socket”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

Function:
“receiving energy from a power socket”
Structure:
“plug unit 106 and 306, and plug adapters
114 and 314”

Function:
“receiving energy from a power socket”
Structure:
“a plug unit and/or plug adapter
compatible with a North American power
socket, a UK power socket, a European power
socket, or a car power socket; and
equivalents”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 93; id., Ex. B1 at 13; Dkt. No. 123 at 16; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 6. The
parties submit that this term appears in Claim 18 of the ’111 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 93;
id., Ex. B1 at 13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 6.
Plaintiff proposes the construction that the parties agreed upon in Samsung. Samsung
at 48. Defendants’ response brief does not address this term. See Dkt. No. 127. Shortly before
the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with a preliminary
construction identical to the construction agreed upon in Samsung. At the March 26, 2018
hearing, Defendants confirmed that they are in agreement.
The Court accordingly hereby finds that “means for receiving energy from a power
socket” is a means-plus-function term, the function is “receiving energy from a power
socket,” and the corresponding structure is “a plug unit and/or plug adapter compatible with
a North American power socket, a UK power socket, a European power socket, or a car
power socket; and equivalents.”

- 44 -

O. “means for regulating the received energy from the power socket to generate a power
output”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Function:
“regulating the received energy from the
power socket to generate a power output”

Function:
“regulating the received energy from the
power socket to generate a power output”

Structure:
“power converter 104/304, including at
least one of a switching converter, a
transformer, a DC source, a voltage regulator,
a linear regulator, or rectifier; and
equivalents”

Structure:
“power converter 104 or 304”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 96; id., Ex. B1 at 13; Dkt. No. 123 at 16; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 6. The
parties submit that this term appears in Claim 18 of the ’111 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 96;
id., Ex. B1 at 13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 6.
Plaintiff proposes the construction that the parties agreed upon in Samsung. Samsung
at 10. Defendants’ response brief does not address this term. See Dkt. No. 127. Shortly before
the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with the following
preliminary construction: “Function: ‘regulating the received energy from the power socket to
generate a power output’”; and “Corresponding Structure: ‘power converter 104/304 including at
least one of a switching converter, a transformer, a DC source, a voltage regulator, a linear
regulator, or rectifier; and equivalents thereof.’” At the March 26, 2018 hearing, Defendants
confirmed that they are in agreement.
The Court accordingly hereby finds that “means for regulating the received energy
from the power socket to generate a power output” is a means-plus-function term, the
claimed function is “regulating the received energy from the power socket to generate a
power output,” and the corresponding structure is “power converter 104/304 including at
- 45 -

least one of a switching converter, a transformer, a DC source, a voltage regulator, a linear
regulator, or rectifier; and equivalents thereof.”
P. “means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that
the power socket is not a USB hub or host”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

Function:
“generating an identification signal that
indicates to the mobile device that
the power socket is not a USB hub or host”

Function:
“generating an identification signal that
indicates to the mobile device that the power
socket is not a USB hub or host”

Structure:
Indefinite

Structure:
“an identification subsystem 108 and
equivalents thereof” 24

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 14; Dkt. No. 123 at 16; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 6. The parties submit
that this term appears in Claim 18 of the ’111 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 98–99; id., Ex. B1
at 14; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 6–7.
In Samsung, the Court found that “the claimed function is ‘generating an identification
signal that indicates to the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host,’ and the
corresponding structure is ‘identification subsystem 108, and equivalents thereof.’” Samsung
at 50–51.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.

24

Plaintiff previously proposed: “an identification subsystem such as one that includes a
hardwired connection or a USB controller, or one that can electrically connect or disconnect
power or data lines from the USB connector; and the equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1
at 98–99.
- 46 -

(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues:
The patents teach that a USB adapter provides an identification signal to indicate
to a mobile device that it is connected to an “alternate power source” such as an
AC outlet or DC car socket as opposed to a normal USB host or hub. . . . ‘111,
1:59–67, 8:23–25, 9:3–8, 9:26–42, 9:60–65; Ex. 10, ¶ 75. The patent expressly
describes the structures that provide this signal. ‘111, 8:29–42, Ex. 22, original
claims 8–10; Ex. 10, ¶ 74. See also CC Order [(Samsung)] at 49–51.
Dkt. No. 123 at 16.
Defendants respond:
The specification nowhere describes structure that indicates whether the power
socket is or is not a USB hub or host and is therefore indefinite. FISI identifies
structure for indicating to the mobile device that an adapter is connected to the
mobile device, but that indicates nothing about whether the power socket (in
which the adapter plugs) is a hub or host. Ex. 12 ¶¶ 155–156.
Dkt. No. 127 at 15.
Plaintiff replies:
The specification expressly teaches that the identification system indicates to the
mobile device that it is connected to an alternative power source or socket, rather
than a USB hub or host. ’111 at 8:17–42. Defendants’ distinction between a
power source and power socket is immaterial. See id. at 1:54–67; see also SSCC
[(Samsung) at] 50.
Dkt. No. 130 at 7.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed the same arguments that Defendants have presented here. See
Samsung at 49. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same reasons
set forth in Samsung. See id. at 48–51.

- 47 -

The Court accordingly hereby find that “means for generating an identification signal
that indicates to the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host” is a
means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “generating an identification signal that
indicates to the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host,” and the
corresponding structure is “identification subsystem 108, and equivalents thereof.”
Q. “means for coupling the power output and identification signal to the mobile device”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Function:
“coupling the power output and
identification signal to the mobile device”

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).

Structure:
“USB connector 102 and/or USB
connector 54; and equivalents thereof” 25

Function:
“coupling the power output and
identification signal to the mobile device”
Structure:
“USB connector 102 and USB connector
54; and equivalents thereof” 26

Dkt. No. 123 at 16; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 7. The parties submit that this term appears in
Claim 18 of the ’111 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 103; id., Ex. B1 at 13; Dkt. No. 135,
Ex. A1 at 7.
In Samsung, the Court found that “the claimed function is ‘coupling the power output and
identification signal to the mobile device,’ and the corresponding structure is ‘USB connector
102 and USB connector 54; and equivalents thereof.’” Samsung at 53.

25

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a USB connector; and the equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 103,
Ex. A1 at 103.
26

Defendants previously proposed: “USB connector 102 and 302 and USB connector 54 as
shown in Figures 2 and 4.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 15.
- 48 -

Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues:
The Court previously found that the corresponding structure includes both USB
connector 102 and USB connector 54. CC Order [(Samsung)] at 52–53.
Respectfully, although USB connector 54 can be part of the structure for
coupling, it is not necessary. Rather, connector 102 on its own provides for the
recited function. E.g.[], Ex. 10, ¶¶ 76–77; ‘111, Fig. 2, claim 20.
Dkt. No. 123 at 16–17.
Defendants respond:
The Court found that the structure requires both “USB connector 102 and USB
connector 54.” [Samsung] at 52–53. Defendants agree. Ex. 12 ¶¶ 158–159. FISI
claims that the USB connector 54 is not necessarily required. Brief 16–17. The
Court has rejected that position. [Samsung] at 52–53.
Dkt. No. 127 at 15.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term. In
particular, Plaintiff cited disclosures in the specification regarding “a primary USB connector.”
See ’111 Patent at 2:19‒34.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Plaintiff has presented here.
See Samsung at 51–53. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same
reasons set forth in Samsung. See id. The disclosures cited by Plaintiff regarding “a primary
USB connector” do not compel otherwise. See ’111 Patent at 2:19‒34. In particular, Plaintiff
has not demonstrated that “the specification . . . clearly links or associates that structure to the
function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344
F.3d 1205, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks
- 49 -

omitted). Instead, the corresponding structure includes both the “USB connector 102” and the
“USB connector 54.” See Samsung at 52‒53; see, e.g., ’111 Patent at 6:15‒17 (“The USB
connector 54 is the physical component that couples the USB port to the outside world.”)
The Court therefore hereby finds that “means for coupling the power output and
identification signal to the mobile device” is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function
is “coupling the power output and identification signal to the mobile device,” and the
corresponding structure is “USB connector 102 and USB connector 54; and equivalents
thereof.”
V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’319 PATENT FAMILY 27
R. “USB”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

USB should only be construed as part of the
term in which it appears

“USB is an abbreviation for ‘Universal Serial
Bus,’ which is a computer standard
technology described in Universal Serial Bus
Specification Revision 2.0 and other versions
of this standard promulgated at the time of the
claimed invention.”

27

In its opening claim construction brief, Plaintiff submits: “For the terms USB port and nonUSB source, Fundamental has adopted the Court’s construction from the Samsung case that these
terms be given the [sic, their] plain meaning. Because Defendants have asserted that these terms
need not be construed (Dkt. 103-6 at 14-15), Fundamental is not addressing them further in this
brief.” Dkt. No. 123 at 17 n.7. Defendants responded: “Defendants, however, seek
constructions for all ‘USB’ terms, have sought plain and ordinary meaning for the rest of the
terms, and have sought back up constructions for these specific terms.” Dkt. No. 127 at 28. In
the parties’ March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d), the parties
agreed that “non-USB source” should be construed as follows: “Plain meaning in light of the
Court’s construction of ‘USB.’” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 5. As to “USB port” in claims of the
’319 Patent, Defendants stated in the Joint Claim Construction Chart: “Limiting as part of
preamble.” Id. at 4. At the March 26, 2018 hearing, Defendants urged that the term “USB port”
is limiting in the preambles of Claims 1 and 18 of the ’111 Patent (addressed above), but
Defendants did not present any such statement as to the ’319 Patent Family. Further, no such
argument appears in Defendants’ response brief. See Dkt. No. 127 at 28‒29. Defendants thus
have not adequately supported any assertion that the term “USB port” is limiting in the
- 50 -

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 19; id., Ex. B2 at 1. The parties submit that this term appears in
Claims 1, 2, and 13–20 of the ’319 Patent and Claim 7 of the ’514 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2
at 1; see id., Ex. A2 at 19 (“various”).
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “Universal Serial Bus as described in
Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this standard at the time
of the claimed invention.” Samsung at 81.
In the parties’ March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they
have agreed upon applying the Samsung construction. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 4. Shortly before
the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with a preliminary
construction identical to the Samsung construction. At the hearing, no party objected to this
construction.
The Court accordingly hereby construes “USB” to mean “Universal Serial Bus as
described in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this
standard at the time of the claimed invention.”
S. “battery charge controller”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

“a standard battery charge controller that
manages charging of the battery, including
regulating the voltage and current levels to the
battery”

“controller that manages charging of a
battery”

preambles of any of the claims of the ’319 Patent Family. The Court therefore hereby expressly
rejects Defendants’ assertion in that regard.
- 51 -

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 1; id., Ex. B2 at 3; Dkt. No. 123 at 17; Dkt. No. 127 at 16; Dkt. No. 135,
Ex. A2 at 1. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 14, and 19 of the ’319 Patent
and Claims 1, 18, and 20 of the ’514 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 3; see Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2
at 1; see also id., Ex. A2 at 1 (“’319, ’514, all claims”); Dkt. No. 127 at 16 (same).
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “controller that manages charging of a
battery.” Samsung at 56.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “[t]he claims . . . make clear that the battery charge controller is part
of a larger circuitry,” and “[t]he specification likewise teaches that a battery charge controller
need not be the entire battery charger IC, but one functional unit ‘employ[ed]’ by the IC.” Dkt.
No. 123 at 18 (quoting ’319 Patent at 1:22–24). Plaintiff also argues that “[b]ecause the plain
language of the claims is not limited to standard battery charge controllers, it would be improper
to limit the claims to only those embodiments that use a standard battery charge controller.” Dkt.
No. 123 at 18.
Defendants respond that “the construction of the term battery charge controller should not
only require an actual ‘controller,’ but should ensure that the controller is a ‘standard’ controller
with all the corresponding features and functions.” Dkt. No. 127 at 16.
Plaintiff replies that “[w]hile the intrinsic evidence explains that the claimed invention
may have certain advantages when used with a standard battery charge controller, it does not
disclaim the use of non-standard controllers.” Dkt. No. 130 at 7. Plaintiff also argues that “[t]he
second portion of Defendants’ construction should be rejected because it imports an extraneous

- 52 -

limitation based on exemplary functionality in the specification.” Id. (citing ’319 Patent at 1:22–
28).
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term. In
particular, Defendants urged that their proposal of requiring a “standard” battery charge
controller is supported by multiple disclosures in the specification as to using “standard” or “off
the shelf” battery charge controllers. See ’319 Patent at 4:3‒7, 5:30‒33, 6:9‒16, 7:56‒58 &
9:65‒67; see also id. at 3:51‒58 (“New, dedicated battery charge controllers could be developed
which are designed to operate with a USB power supply and a portable device 18, but that would
be an expensive and complicated solution.”).
(2) Analysis
The Summary of the Invention, for example, states:
It is therefore an object of the invention to provide a novel method and apparatus
which allows standard battery charge controllers to be supplied from standard
computer data ports and other power sources, which obviates or mitigates at least
one of the disadvantages of the prior art.
’319 Patent at 4:3–7 (emphasis added). The specification further discloses:
The total power consumed may therefore be modulated to stay within the limits of
the power available from the USB port 12, and within the range of power that the
battery charge controller 20 is able to dissipate. This allows battery charge
controllers 20 to be used “off the shelf”, rather than having to design new and
larger battery charge controllers 20 which can dissipate enough power to supply
both the portable device 18 and battery 24. It also allows the battery charge
controller 20 or external driving element to be kept physically small.
Id. at 6:9–17 (emphasis added); see id. at 5:30–33 (“a battery charging circuit built around a
standard battery charge controller 20”).
Defendants have not demonstrated, however, that anything in the claims or the
specification attributes special significance to using a “standard” battery charge controller. See
id. at 3:59–4:7. Instead, this is an exemplary objective or a specific feature of particular
- 53 -

preferred embodiments that should not be imported into the claims. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The fact that a patent asserts that an
invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as
limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.”); see also Comark
Commc’ns, 156 F.3d at 1187; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. As Plaintiff has pointed out, the
specification sometimes uses the term “battery charge controller” without using the word
“standard.” See, e.g., ’319 Patent at 13:27–29.
Defendants have also cited prosecution history in which the patentee stated: “This allows
battery charge controllers 20 to be used ‘off the shelf’, rather than having to design new and
larger battery charge controllers 20 which can dissipate enough power to supply both the
portable device 18 and battery 24.” Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 27, Nov. 2, 2007 Response to Office
Action Dated August 3, 2007 at 11‒12. This does not, however, amount to a definitive statement
that the term “battery charge controller” is limited to being “off the shelf.” See Omega Eng’g,
334 F.3d at 1324 (“As a basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes
the public notice function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive
statements made during prosecution.”) (emphasis added); see also Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at
908 (quoted above).
As to the remainder of Defendants’ proposal, the Background of the Invention discloses
functionality of battery charge controllers as follows:
The battery chargers of these portable devices also generally employ a “battery
charge controller” to manage the charging of the battery. Such battery charge
controllers offer functionality such as:
regulating the voltage and current levels to the rechargeable battery;
providing status signals to the main processor of the portable device, or
operating one or more status LEDs (light emitting diodes);
providing protection circuits such as overcurrent, undervoltage, reverse
polarity and overtemperature protection; and
- 54 -

shutting themselves off when the charging source has been removed, to
minimize battery drain.
’319 Patent at 1:22–35 (emphasis added).
First, this list of functionality is introduced by the phrase “such as,” which indicates that
this list is exemplary rather than definitional. Certainly, Defendants have not demonstrated that
this disclosure amounts to a lexicography. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision before it can affect the claim.”); see also CCS
Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“the claim term will not
receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a
definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history”)
(emphasis added); Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the
disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning.”) (emphasis added; citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Second, the claims here at issue already provide context as to the functionality of the
“battery charge controller.” Claim 1 of the ’319 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):
1. A battery charging circuit, comprising:
a semiconductor switch having an output connected to a rechargeable
battery and configurable to isolate the rechargeable battery from a portable
device;
a battery charge controller configured to receive power from an external
universal serial bus (USB) port, and supply output power to the portable device
having at least one function unrelated to the battery charge controller and to the
rechargeable battery through the switch;
the battery charge controller being further configured to limit the output
power such that the portable device and the rechargeable battery may not draw
more than a pre-determined maximum current available from the USB port; and
a voltage sensing circuit configured to measure a voltage drop across the
battery charge controller, and respond to the voltage drop across the battery
- 55 -

charge controller by modulating the switch to control an amount of current
supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a
predetermined amount of power needed to operate and the rechargeable battery
receives a remainder of the power available from the battery charge controller.
Thus, Defendants have not demonstrated that the above-reproduced disclosure regarding
particular exemplary features should be imported into the term “battery charge controller.” The
Trading Technologies case cited by Defendants does not compel otherwise. Trading Techs. Int’l,
Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting interpretation that would
“defy the invention’s goal”).
The Court therefore hereby construes “battery charge controller” to mean “controller
that manages charging of a battery.”
T. “voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“voltage difference between two terminals of
(a/the) battery charge controller”

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).
“voltage drop between a power input of a
battery charge controller and a power output
of the battery charge controller” 28

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 5; Dkt. No. 123 at 18; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 1. The parties submit that
this term appears in Claims 1, 14, and 19 of the ’319 Patent and Claims 1, 18, and 20 of the ’514
Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 3; see Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 1; see also id., Ex. A2 at 5 (“’319
and ’514, all claims”); Dkt. No. 127 at 18 (same).

28

Defendants previously proposed: “difference in voltage measured at the power input and
battery charging output of the battery charge controller.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 3; Dkt.
No. 127 at 18.
- 56 -

In Samsung, the Court construed these terms to mean “voltage drop between a power
input of a battery charge controller and a power output of the battery charge controller.”
Samsung at 59.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that whereas “[o]ne way to measure voltage drop compares the voltage at
the input and output of the battery charge controller, another way to measure compares the
output of the battery charge controller with a reference voltage.” Dkt. No. 123 at 19.
Defendants respond that Samsung “correctly found that . . . Figure[] 6 was not an
embodiment of claim 1 of the ’319 patent.” Dkt. No. 127 at 19. Defendants also argue that
“FISI’s . . . proposed construction of ‘terminals’ would also cover comparisons between
terminals that have no relationship to the voltage drop across a battery charge controller and has
no support in the intrinsic record.” Id. at 20.
Plaintiff replies: “FISI’s construction does not remove the words ‘across the battery
charge controller’—the measurement or response must be tied to a voltage drop across the
controller.” Dkt. No. 130 at 7–8.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same issues that have been presented here. See
Samsung at 56–59. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same
reasons set forth in Samsung. See id.; see also id. at 58 (“the construction should clarify that the
voltage difference is between a power input and a power input [sic, output]”); see, e.g., PPC

- 57 -

Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It
is not necessary that each claim read on every embodiment.”) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Also, Plaintiff’s arguments as to dependent Claim 4 of the ’319 Patent and dependent
Claim 4 of the ’514 Patent are unpersuasive in light of the recital therein of not just a reference
voltage signal but also an “operational amplifier” for comparing with a reference voltage signal
and responding by reducing current. Alternatively and in addition, the word “across” in the
limitation here at issue should be given effect in the construction even if some of the dependent
claims might be interpreted as inconsistent with that limitation. See Enzo Biochem Inc. v.
Applera Corp., 780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[D]ependent claims cannot broaden an
independent claim from which they depend.”)
Finally, to whatever extent Defendants are maintaining their original proposed
construction, Defendants have not justified departing from the Samsung construction, in
particular as to Defendants’ original proposal of “measured.”
The Court therefore hereby construes “voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge
controller” to mean “voltage drop between a power input of a battery charge controller and
a power output of the battery charge controller.”

- 58 -

U. “power”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

“product of voltage and current”

“electricity” 29
Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 5; Dkt. No. 123 at 21; Dkt. No. 127 at 22; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 2.
The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 14–16, 19, and 20 of the ’319 Patent and
Claims 1, 6, 17, 18, and 20 of the ’514 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 5; see Dkt. No. 135,
Ex. A2 at 3; see also id., Ex. A2 at 30 (“’319, ’514, all terms [sic, claims]”); see also Dkt.
No. 127 at 22 (“all claims”).
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “electricity.” Samsung at 61.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “electricity.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “[a]s the Court noted [in Samsung], the patents use power in an
informal sense.” Dkt. No. 123 at 21 (citing Samsung at 60).
Defendants respond that “Defendants’ proposed construction will help the jury to
understand the claims of the Veselic Patents, which discuss the relationship of power, voltage,
and current.” Dkt. No. 127 at 22. Defendants argue that the language of Claim 1 of the ’319
Patent, for example, “confirms that the term power has voltage and current components,
consistent with Defendants’ construction and the fundamental formula P=VI.” Id. at 23. Finally,

29

Plaintiff previously proposed: “No additional construction necessary at this time (i.e., plain
and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence) or ‘electrical energy supplied from a
source.’” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 30.
- 59 -

Defendants argue that “[i]f the court agrees with FISI’s expert that the term power can be
interpreted to mean different things for different claims, the Court should find the term
indefinite.” Id. at 24.
Plaintiff replies that “[a]s the Court has recognized, the Veselic patents use ‘power’ to
refer, in a colloquial sense, to electricity—not to signify the formal physics relationship of power
= current * voltage.” Dkt. No. 130 at 9. Plaintiff also argues that “Defendants’ newly raised
indefiniteness argument (DBr. [(Dkt. No. 127) at] 24) lacks merit because power is used
consistently across claims, even if the power being referenced may be measured in different
ways.” Dkt. No. 130 at 9.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term. For
example, Defendants highlighted that in one instance the specification refers to “2.55 W[atts] of
power.” ’319 Patent at 8:44‒45.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
here. See Samsung at 59–61. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the
same reasons set forth in Samsung. See Samsung at 60‒61; see also Dkt. No. 123, Feb. 7, 2018
Fernald Decl. at ¶¶ 105–09; ’319 Patent at 1:19–21 (“convert the AC power into a low DC
voltage for recharging a battery”) (emphasis added). The case law cited by Defendants as to a
different, unrelated patent is unpersuasive. See Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Janam Techs. LLC, 605 F.
Supp. 2d 618, 621–22 (D. Del. 2009) (“the usage of ‘power’ and ‘voltage’ throughout the patent
supports the conclusion that the patentees intended these terms to have different, though related,
meanings”); see also e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc., 772 F.3d 723, 727 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (noting “the well-understood notion that claims of unrelated patents must be construed

- 60 -

separately” and that “a claim of an unrelated patent ‘sheds no light on’ the claims of the patent in
suit”) (citations omitted). The opinions of Defendants’ expert are likewise unpersuasive. See
Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 12, Feb. 21, 2018 Dezmelyk Decl. at ¶¶ 181–88.
The Court therefore hereby construes “power” to mean “electricity.”
V. “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of [the] power available
from the battery charge controller” and “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives a
remainder of the received power”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“[such that . . . the rechargeable battery
receives] a portion of the power available
from the battery charge controller that is not
used by the portable device”

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).
“the remaining power available from the
battery charge controller”

“[such that . . . the rechargeable battery
receives] a portion of the power received
from the USB port that is not used by portable “the remaining received power” 30
device”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 36; Dkt. No. 123 at 21 (emphasis Plaintiff’s); Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 3.
The parties submit that these terms appear in Claims 1, 14, 19, and 20 of the ’319 Patent and
Claim 20 of the ’514 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 7; see Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 3; see also
id., Ex. A2 at 36 (“’319, ’514, all claims”).
In Samsung, the Court construed “a remainder of [the] power available from the battery
charge controller” and “a remainder of the received power” to mean “the remaining power
available from the battery charge controller” and “the remaining received power,” respectively.
Samsung at 65.

30

Defendants previously proposed: “such that . . . the [rechargeable] battery receives any
additional available power from the battery charge controller” and “such that . . . the
rechargeable battery receives any additional available power received.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2
at 7.
- 61 -

Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary constructions for the two disputed terms presented here,
respectively: “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives the remaining power available from
the battery charge controller”; and “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives the remaining
received power.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “the claims and specification indicate that the indefinite article ‘a’
should not be limited to ‘the.’” Dkt. No. 123 at 22. Plaintiff urges that “if any portion of the
available power is provided to the battery, the claim is satisfied, even if some portion goes
elsewhere.” Id.
Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s argument was rejected by the Court in Samsung. Dkt.
No. 127 at 24–25. Defendants also argue that “FISI’s argument is implausible” because it
“would allow any portion of the available power to be routed to the rechargeable battery,
regardless of the available power.” Id. at 25.
Plaintiff replies that “[b]y reciting that ‘a remainder’ of the available power is provided to
the battery, the claims contemplate that another portion of the remainder may be distributed
elsewhere.” Dkt. No. 130 at 9. Plaintiff submits that this interpretation “is consistent with
disclosed embodiments where power that is not provided to the system may be supplied to both
the battery and ‘high-power consuming components.’” Id. (citing ’319 Patent at 9:10–20).
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
(2) Analysis
Plaintiff appears to propose interpreting these terms to encompass any “portion,”
however small. Plaintiff has not justified departing from the finding in Samsung that “the most

- 62 -

reasonable reading of the claim language is that ‘a remainder’ refers to whatever power remains
that is not otherwise incidentally lost or consumed, such as by other related components or by
connections between components.” Samsung at 64 (emphasis added). This finding in Samsung
was based on the Court’s interpretation of the claim language, “remainder,” and is adopted here
notwithstanding Plaintiff’s interpretation of the disclosure in the specification regarding “highpower consuming components” that may be connected “to the battery side of Q3.” See ’319
Patent at 9:10–20. “It is not necessary that each claim read on every embodiment.” PPC
Broadband, 815 F.3d at 755 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants have also presented prosecution history that is consistent with the Samsung
finding. See Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 42, Oct. 22, 2009 Appeal Brief at 18 (regarding claim language
reciting “a remainder,” referring to “modulating a switch to arrange for a predetermined power to
reach the mobile device, with the remainder of the power reaching the rechargeable battery”)
(emphasis added). At the March 26, 2018 hearing, Plaintiff argued that the “Matsuda” reference
at issue in this prosecution history was merely distinguishable as being “all or nothing,” as
Plaintiff put it, because the patentee stated that “the cited portion of Matsuda only discloses
switching power on and off to the battery.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate, however,
why the statements made by the patentee should not be taken into consideration. See Tech.
Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd., 849 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we hold
patentees to the actual arguments made, not the arguments that could have been made”).
The Court thus reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for substantially the
same reasons set forth in Samsung. See Samsung at 61–65.
The Court accordingly hereby construes the disputed terms as set forth in the following
chart:

- 63 -

Term

Construction

“such that . . . the rechargeable battery
receives a remainder of [the] power
available from the battery charge
controller”

“such that . . . the rechargeable battery
receives the remaining power available
from the battery charge controller”

“such that . . . the rechargeable battery
receives a remainder of the received
power”

“such that . . . the rechargeable battery
receives the remaining received power”

W. “reference voltage” and “reference voltage signal”
“reference voltage”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“a voltage against which a voltage of interest
is compared” 31

“a constant voltage used for comparison
purposes”

“reference voltage signal”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“signal related to a reference voltage” 32

“a constant voltage used for comparison
purposes”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 8; Dkt. No. 123 at 22. The parties submit that these terms appear in
Claims 4, 5, and 10 of the ’319 Patent and Claims 4, 5, 8, and 19 of the ’514 Patent. Dkt.
No. 103, Ex. A2 at 39; id., Ex. B2 at 8.

31

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a voltage level against which a voltage of interest is
compared.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 39.
32

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a voltage level against which a voltage of interest is
compared.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 39.
- 64 -

In Samsung, the Court construed these terms to mean “a voltage against which a voltage
of interest is compared” and “signal related to a reference voltage,” respectively. Samsung at 68.
In their March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they have
agreed to the Samsung constructions. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 3–4. Shortly before the start of
the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with preliminary constructions
identical to the Samsung constructions. At the hearing, no party objected to these constructions.
The Court therefore hereby construes the disputed terms as set forth in the following
chart:
Term

Construction

“reference voltage”

“a voltage against which a voltage of
interest is compared”

“reference voltage signal”

“signal related to a reference voltage”

X. “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain meaning 33

“a switch”:
“single switch”
“a semiconductor switch”:
“single semiconductor switch”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 4; Dkt. No. 123 at 23. The parties submit that this term appears in
Claims 1, 14, and 19 of the ’319 Patent and Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’514 Patent.
Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 4; id., Ex. A2 at 26 (“’319, ’514, all claims”).
33

Plaintiff previously proposed: “Switch: one or more devices or circuits that control
conductance between two nodes and that are capable of operating in on, off and non-transient
linear modes”; and “Semiconductor switch: switch as defined above that comprises
semiconductor material.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 26.
- 65 -

In Samsung, the Court construed these terms to have their plain meaning. Samsung at 71.
In their March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they have
agreed upon the following construction: “Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary.” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 4.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary.” At the March 26, 2018 hearing, no party objected to this construction.
The Court therefore hereby construes “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch” as
follows: “Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction necessary.”
Y. “voltage sensing circuit”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary

“circuit that measures the voltage drop across
the battery charge controller and responds to
the voltage drop across the battery charge
controller by controlling the current flow
through the switch to the rechargeable
battery”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 80; id., Ex. B2 at 10; Dkt. No. 123 at 24; Dkt. No. 127 at 21; Dkt.
No. 135, Ex. A2 at 1. The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 3–5, 14, and 19 of
the ’319 Patent and Claims 1, 3–5, 8, and 9 of the ’514 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 10; see
Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 1; see also id., Ex. A2 at 80 (“’319, claims 1, 14, and 19”; “’514,
claim 1”); see also Dkt. No. 127 at 21 (“’319, ’514: all claims”).
In Samsung, the Court found that the term “the voltage sensing circuit” in Claims 7, 8,
and 15–17 of the related ’983 Patent lacked antecedent basis, thus rendering those claims
indefinite. See Samsung at 71–75. The Court did not otherwise construe this term. See id.

- 66 -

Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Plain meaning.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “Defendants seek to add functions to the claimed voltage sensing
circuit beyond those recited by the claims.” Dkt. No. 123 at 24. Further, Plaintiff submits that
“Defendants’ construction would improperly reintroduce a limitation to the claims that the
applicants expressly removed” during prosecution. Id.
Defendants respond that they “seek to construe the term ‘voltage sensing circuit’ so that it
is consistent with the construction of the . . . ‘battery charge controller’ and ‘voltage drop across
the battery charge controller’ terms.” Dkt. No. 127 at 21.
Plaintiff replies: “For example, ’319 claim 1 requires the voltage sensing circuit to
measure and respond to a voltage drop, while ’514 claim 1 only requires the circuit to respond to
a voltage drop.” Dkt. No. 130 at 8.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
(2) Analysis
As to the ’319 Patent, Defendants’ proposed construction appears to be entirely
redundant of other claim language. For example, Claim 1 of the ’319 Patent, recites, in relevant
part:
1. A battery charging circuit, comprising:
...
a voltage sensing circuit configured to measure a voltage drop across the
battery charge controller, and respond to the voltage drop across the battery
charge controller by modulating the switch to control an amount of current
supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a
predetermined amount of power needed to operate and the rechargeable battery
receives a remainder of the power available from the battery charge controller.

- 67 -

The claims of the ’514 Patent, by contrast, recite “respond[ing] to a voltage drop” but do
not recite measuring a voltage drop. For example, Claim 1 of the ’514 Patent recites (emphasis
added):
1. A battery charging circuit comprising:
a switch having an output connected to a rechargeable battery and
configurable to isolate the rechargeable battery from a portable device;
a battery charge controller configured to receive power from an external
power source and supply output power to the portable device; and
a voltage sensing circuit configured to:
respond to a voltage drop across the battery charge controller by
modulating the switch to control a quantity of current supplied to the
rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a predetermined
amount of power to operate and the rechargeable battery receives a reminder of
the power available from the battery charge controller.
The effect of Defendants’ proposed construction, then, would be to import the “measures
the voltage drop across the battery charge controller” limitation into the claims of the ’514
Patent. Given that each claim of these patents already expressly recites how the “voltage sensing
circuit” is configured, Defendants’ proposal of construing this term according to a particular
configuration is unwarranted.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, Defendants highlighted the Court’s finding in Samsung
that “voltage sensing circuit 30” was corresponding structure for means-plus-function terms that
including both “measuring” and “responding” functions. Defendants have not shown how this
corresponding structure finding as to the particular disclosed “voltage sensing circuit 30”
necessarily implies that the term “voltage sensing circuit” must have particular functionality. In
other words, Defendants have not shown why the term “voltage sensing circuit” should be
limited to the particular “voltage sensing circuit 30” disclosed in the specification. The cited
prosecution history statements as to “voltage sensing circuit 30” are similarly unpersuasive. See
Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 27, Nov. 2, 2007 Response to Office Action Dated August 3, 2007 at 11.

- 68 -

Finally, Defendants have argued that “there is no support in the specification for a
‘voltage sensing circuit’ that measures the voltage drop across the battery charge controller, but
does not respond to the measurement, and vice versa.” Dkt. No. 127 at 21. Defendants’ expert
has opined that: “A voltage sensing circuit, as defined by the ’319 patent, must measure the
voltage drop across the battery charge controller and also respond to such measurement. The
invention as claimed is otherwise inoperable.” Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 12, Feb. 21, 2018 Dezmelyk
Decl. at ¶ 180. As a general matter, “[a] construction that renders the claimed invention inoperable
should be viewed with extreme skepticism.” AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 657 F.3d 1264,
1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Talbert Fuel Sys. Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp., 275 F.3d 1371, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2002), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 537 U.S. 802 (2002)). Here, however,
Defendants have not adequately or persuasively explained how the claims of the ’514 Patent would
be inoperable if not construed so as to require measuring. At best, Defendants’ argument may

perhaps bear upon issues of written description or enablement, but Defendants have not
demonstrated that any claim construction is warranted in this regard.
The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposed construction. No
further construction is necessary, particularly in light of the context provided by surrounding
claim language as to how the voltage sensing circuit is “configured.” See U.S. Surgical Corp.,
103 F.3d at 1568; see also O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362; Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1207; ActiveVideo,
694 F.3d at 1326; Summit 6, 802 F.3d at 1291.
The Court therefore hereby construes “voltage sensing circuit” to have its plain
meaning.

- 69 -

Z. “wherein the supply current passes through the external driving semiconductor rather
than through the battery charge controller” and “whereby load current passes through the
external driving semiconductor instead of the battery charge controller”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“external driving semiconductor”:
“a semiconductor circuit element that is
outside the circuitry responsible for managing
battery charging and through which current
passes under the control of the circuitry
responsible for managing battery charging”;
the remainder of the term requires no
additional construction necessary at this time
(i.e., plain and ordinary meaning in light of
the intrinsic evidence)”

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).
Indefinite

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 42; id., Ex. B2 at 9; Dkt. No. 123 at 78; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 1–2.
The parties submit that these terms appear in Claim 2 of the ’319 Patent and Claim 2 of the ’514
Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 41–42; id., Ex. B2 at 9–10; Dkt. No. 127 at 21; Dkt. No. 135,
Ex. A2 at 1–3.
In Samsung, the Court found that these terms render these claims indefinite. See
Samsung at 75–78.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Indefinite.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “when the specification teaches receiving power from an external
power source and supplying the received power, electrons are not required to literally flow
through the battery charge controller. Rather, they may flow through an external driving element
controlled by the battery charge controller.” Dkt. No. 123 at 25.

- 70 -

Defendants respond that they agree with the Court’s analysis in Samsung. Dkt. No. 127
at 22. Defendants submit that Plaintiff here makes the same arguments that the Court rejected in
Samsung. Id.
Plaintiff replies that “[t]he ’514 patent expressly discloses embodiments (e.g., Figure 6),
in which power passes through an external driving element.” Dkt. No. 130 at 8.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to these terms.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Plaintiff has presented here.
See Samsung at 75–78. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same
reasons set forth in Samsung. See id.
The Court thus finds that the terms “wherein the supply current passes through the
external driving semiconductor rather than through the battery charge controller” and
“whereby load current passes through the external driving semiconductor instead of the
battery charge controller” render Claim 2 of the ’319 Patent and Claim 2 of the ’514 Patent
indefinite.
AA. Preambles
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Preambles of Claims 1–19 of the ’319 Patent
The preambles are limiting.
and Claims 1–17 and 20 of the ’514 Patent are
not limiting.
Dkt. No. 123 at 25; see Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 8.
This dispute does not appear to have arisen in Samsung.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Not limiting.”

- 71 -

(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues:
Defendants argue that all preambles are limiting. This is incorrect. For example,
claims 1–19 of the ’319 patent and claims 1–17 and 20 of the ’514 patent are
directed to a “battery charging circuit” or a “power supply circuit.” These
preambles are not referenced in the body of the claim or relied on during
prosecution. They are not limiting. Symantec, 522 F.3d at 1288–89.
Dkt. No. 123 at 25.
Defendants respond that the patentee relied on preamble language during prosecution of
the ’319 Patent. Dkt. No. 127 at 27.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral arguments as to these
terms.
(2) Analysis
The terms “battery charging circuit” and “power supply circuit” do not appear in the
bodies of these claims, so the preambles do not provide any antecedent basis. On balance, these
preambles “merely give[] a name” to the claimed structure. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703
F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see IMS Tech.,
Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Defendants have cited prosecution history in which the patentee referred to “the circuit of
the invention.” Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 27, Response to Office Action Dated August 3, 2007 at 13.
Defendants have not demonstrated that the patentee relied upon the complete phrase “battery
charging circuit” (’319 Patent, Claims 1–19; ’514 Patent, Claims 1–17) or “power supply circuit”
(’514 Patent, Claim 20). No disclaimer or reliance upon the preamble terms here at issue is
apparent. See Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1324 (“As a basic principle of claim interpretation,

- 72 -

prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic evidence and protects
the public’s reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.”) (emphasis added).
The Court therefore hereby finds that the preambles of Claims 1–19 of the ’319 Patent
and Claims 1–17 and 20 of the ’514 Patent are not limiting.
BB. “means for receiving power from the USB port”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Function:
“receiving power from the USB port”

Function:
“receiving power from the USB port”

Structure:
“battery charge controller 20; and
equivalents thereof” 34

Structure:
“NCP1800 battery charge controller and
its associated external driving element, or the
Texas Instruments bq24020 Lithium Ion
battery charge controller”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 11; Dkt. No. 123 at 25. The parties submit that this term appears in
Claim 20 of the ’319 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 47; id., Ex. B2 at 11; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2
at 5.
Plaintiff has proposed the construction that the Court reached in Samsung. Samsung
at 83.
In their March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they have
agreed to the Samsung construction. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 5. Shortly before the start of the
March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with a preliminary construction identical
to the Samsung construction. At the hearing, no party objected to this construction.

34

Plaintiff previously proposed: “battery charge controller; and the equivalents thereof.” Dkt.
No. 103, Ex. A2 at 47.
- 73 -

The Court therefore hereby finds that “means for receiving power from the USB port”
is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “receiving power from the USB port,”
and the corresponding structure is “battery charge controller 20, and equivalents thereof.”
CC. “means for supplying the received power to the rechargeable battery and to the
portable device, wherein the supplied power is limited such that the rechargeable battery
and the portable device may not draw more than a pre-determined maximum amount of
current available from the USB port”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Function:
“supplying the received power to the
rechargeable battery and to the portable
device, wherein the supplied power is limited
such that the rechargeable battery and the
portable device may not draw more than a
pre-determined maximum amount of current
available from the USB port”

Function:
“supplying the received power to the
rechargeable battery and to the portable
device, wherein the supplied power is limited
such that the rechargeable battery and the
portable device may not draw more than a
pre-determined maximum amount of current
available from the USB port”

Structure:
“battery charge controller 20; and
equivalents thereof” 35

Structure:
“NCP1800 battery charge controller or
Texas Instruments bq24020 Lithium Ion
battery charge controller in coordination with
resistors R2, R3, and R4 between ISEL and
ground”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 12; Dkt. No. 123 at 26. The parties submit that this term appears in
Claim 20 of the ’319 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 51–52; id., Ex. B2 at 12; Dkt. No. 135,
Ex. A2 at 5–6.

35

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a battery charge controller in coordination with hardware such
as a resistor to ground, a battery charge controller receiving programmable current limits,
programmable devices such as digital signal processors (DSPs), micro-controller (including
microcontroller with an DAC that can control battery charge controller current output), field
programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and the like
with programmed instructions that control current output level of battery charge controller
embodied as sets of executable machine code stored as object or source code, integrated with the
code of other programs, implemented as subroutines, by external program calls or HDLs; and
equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 51–53.
- 74 -

Plaintiff has proposed the construction that the Court reached in Samsung. Samsung
at 85.
In their March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they have
agreed to the Samsung construction. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 5–6. Shortly before the start of the
March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with a preliminary construction identical
to the Samsung construction. At the hearing, no party objected to this construction.
The Court therefore hereby finds that “means for supplying the received power to the
rechargeable battery and to the portable device, wherein the supplied power is limited such
that the rechargeable battery and the portable device may not draw more than a predetermined maximum amount of current available from the USB port” is a means-plusfunction term, the claimed function is “supplying the received power to the rechargeable
battery and to the portable device, wherein the supplied power is limited such that the
rechargeable battery and the portable device may not draw more than a pre-determined
maximum amount of current available from the USB port,” and the corresponding structure
is “battery charge controller 20, and equivalents thereof.”

- 75 -

DD. “means for both isolating the rechargeable battery from the portable device and
controlling an amount of current supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the
portable device receives a pre-determined amount of the received power needed to operate
and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the received power”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Function:
“isolating the rechargeable battery from
the portable device and controlling an amount
of current supplied to the rechargeable battery
such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount of the received power
needed to operate and the rechargeable
battery receives a remainder of the received
power”

Function:
“both isolating the rechargeable battery
from the portable device and controlling an
amount of current supplied to the
rechargeable battery such that the portable
device receives a pre-determined amount of
the received power needed to operate and the
rechargeable battery receives a remainder of
the received power”

Structure:
“switch Q1 and voltage sensing circuit 30
or micro-controllers with integral analog to
digital converters; or switch Q3 and a sensing
circuit consisting of op amp 52, resistors R5
and R6 and capacitor C1; or switch Q908 and
comparator U905, and equivalents thereof” 36

Structure:
Indefinite

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 12; Dkt. No. 123 at 26; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 6–7. The parties submit
that this term appears in Claim 20 of the ’319 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 57–58; id., Ex. B2
at 12–13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 6–7.
In Samsung, the Court found that “the claimed function is ‘both isolating the rechargeable
battery from the portable device and controlling an amount of current supplied to the
rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a pre-determined amount of the

36

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a switch under control of a voltage sensing circuit which may
include an op amp or a comparator; a programmable device such as a DSP, an FPGA, a
microcontroller with integral ADCs or an ASCI that has programmed instructions that can
measure voltage drop across battery charge controller and respond to such drop by modulating
semiconductor switch to reduce current to rechargeable battery when voltage drop is too great,
where the programmable instructions are embodied as sets of executable machine code stored as
object or source code, integrated with the code of other programs, implemented as subroutines,
by external program calls or HDLs; and equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 58–59.
- 76 -

received power needed to operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the
received power,’ and the corresponding structure is ‘switch Q1 and voltage sensing circuit 30;
and equivalents thereof.’” Samsung at 89.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues:
Defendants assert that the limitation is indefinite, but the structure associated with
this claim is expressly described in ’319 patent at Figures 4–8, 5:34–6:8, 7:20–31,
7:53–55, 8:13–36, 10:18–24, 12:52–13:5, 13:15–22, 13:41–67; Ex. 23 at
originally filed claims 1, 3, 4, 5 & 10; Tutorial Slides #37–38, 44, 62–64, 66–68;
Ex. 10, ¶¶ 137–138 (ensuring the portable of a minimum system voltage also
assures it of a predetermined amount of received power needed to operate),
¶¶ 139–140 (explaining “a remainder”).
Dkt. No. 123 at 26.
Defendants respond that there is no corresponding structure because “[t]he ’319 discloses
the opposite, namely that power for operating the portable device is dynamically adjusted, not
‘predetermined.’” Dkt. No. 127 at 29 (citing ’319 Patent at 9:8–9). Further, Defendants argue
that “[e]ven if a predetermined amount of power needed to operate was disclosed, the patents
provide no structure for how to achieve a result whereby the portable device receives such an
amount of power.” Id. at 29–30.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral arguments as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
Defendants have not sufficiently justified departing from the Samsung analysis or
otherwise shown indefiniteness. See Samsung at 86–89. Likewise, Plaintiff has not persuasively

- 77 -

demonstrated that the corresponding structure should be expanded beyond “switch Q1” and
“voltage sensing circuit 30.” See id. at 87‒89; see also Med. Instrumentation, 344 F.3d at 1219
(“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification
or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the
claim.”) (emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court therefore hereby finds that “means for both isolating the rechargeable
battery from the portable device and controlling an amount of current supplied to the
rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a pre-determined amount of the
received power needed to operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the
received power” is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “both isolating the
rechargeable battery from the portable device and controlling an amount of current
supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount of the received power needed to operate and the rechargeable battery
receives a remainder of the received power,” and the corresponding structure is “switch Q1
and voltage sensing circuit 30; and equivalents thereof.”

- 78 -

EE. “means for measuring a voltage drop across a battery charge controller providing
power to a portable device and an input of a switch in parallel”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Function:
“measuring a voltage drop across a battery
charge controller providing power to a
portable device and an input of a switch in
parallel”

Defendants adopt the Court’s construction
from the Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145
(D.I. 140).

Structure:
“voltage sensing circuit 30; or a sensing
circuit consisting of op amp 52, resistors R5
and R6 and capacitor C1; comparator U905;
or micro-controllers with integral analog to
digital converters, and equivalents thereof” 37

Function:
“measuring a voltage drop across a battery
charge controller providing power to a
portable device and an input of a switch in
parallel”
Structure:
“voltage sensing circuit 30, and
equivalents thereof” 38

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 13; Dkt. No. 123 at 27; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 7. The parties submit
that this term appears in Claim 20 of the ’319 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 64; id., Ex. B2
at 13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 7.
In Samsung, the Court found that “the claimed function is ‘measuring a voltage drop
across a battery charge controller providing power to a portable device and an input of a switch
in parallel,’ and the corresponding structure is ‘voltage sensing circuit 30, and equivalents
thereof.’” Samsung at 92.

37

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a voltage sensing circuit that may include an op amp and
voltage divider or a programmable device such as an FGPG, an ASIC, a DSP and a
microcontroller with integral ADCs that has programmed instructions that can measure voltage
drop across battery charge controller, where the programmable instructions are embodied as sets
of executable machine code stored as object or source code, integrated with the code of other
programs, implemented as subroutines, by external program calls or HDLs; and equivalents
thereof.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 64–65.
38

Defendants previously proposed that the corresponding structure is “Fig. 4: ’319 at 5:55–60;
’319 at 13:43–44.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 13.
- 79 -

Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues: “Defendants ignore the express structure recited in Figs. 6, 7 and 8.
Ex. 10, ¶¶ 141–143; Ex. 5 [’319], 5:33–42, 5:55–64, 8:13–28, 10:18–24, 12:52–13:5, 13:15–22,
13:41–45 (microcontrollers with integral ADCs can measure voltage drop), 13:60–14:5; Ex. 23,
claims 1, 3, 4, 5 & 10.” Dkt. No. 123 at 27.
Defendants’ response brief does not address this term. See Dkt. No. 127.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral arguments as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
Defendants have not presented arguments as to this term, but Plaintiff has not sufficiently
justified departing from the analysis and conclusions reached in Samsung. See Samsung at 90–
92; see also Med. Instrumentation, 344 F.3d at 1219 (“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification
is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or
associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”) (emphasis added; citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court therefore hereby finds that “means for measuring a voltage drop across a
battery charge controller providing power to a portable device and an input of a switch in
parallel” is a means-plus-function term, the claimed function is “measuring a voltage drop
across a battery charge controller providing power to a portable device and an input of a
switch in parallel,” and the corresponding structure is “voltage sensing circuit 30, and
equivalents thereof.”

- 80 -

FF. “means for responding to the voltage drop across the battery charge controller by
modulating the switch to control a quantity of current supplied to a rechargeable battery
such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount of power to operate and the
rechargeable battery receives a remainder of power available from the battery charge
controller”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Function:
“[responding to the] voltage drop across
the battery charge controller by modulating
the switch to control a quantity of current
supplied to a rechargeable battery such that
the portable device receives a predetermined
amount of power to operate and the
rechargeable battery receives a remainder of
power available from the battery charge
controller”

Function:
“responding to the voltage drop across the
battery charge controller by modulating the
switch to control a quantity of current
supplied to a rechargeable battery such that
the portable device receives a predetermined
amount of power to operate and the
rechargeable battery receives a remainder of
power available from the battery charge
controller”

Structure:
“voltage sensing circuit 30; or a sensing
circuit consisting of op amp 52, resistors R5
and R6 and capacitor C1; comparator U905;
or micro-controllers with integral analog to
digital converters, and equivalents thereof” 39

Structure:
Indefinite

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 13–14; Dkt. No. 123 at 27; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 7–8. The parties
submit that this term appears in Claim 20 of the ’319 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2 at 72–73; id.,
Ex. B2 at 13–14; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 7–8.
In Samsung, the Court found that “the claimed function is ‘responding to the voltage drop
across the battery charge controller by modulating the switch to control a quantity of current

39

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a voltage sensing circuit that includes an op amp or a
comparator or a programmable device such as a DSP, an FPGA, an ADC, or a microcontroller
programmed instructions that can respond to a voltage drop across the battery charge controller
by modulating semiconductor switch to reduce current to rechargeable battery when voltage drop
is too great, where the programmable instructions are embodied as sets of executable machine
code stored as object or source code, integrated with the code of other programs, implemented as
subroutines, by external program calls or HDLs; and equivalents thereof.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A2
at 73–74.
- 81 -

supplied to a rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount
of power to operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of power available from
the battery charge controller,’ and the corresponding structure is ‘voltage sensing circuit 30, and
equivalents thereof.’” Samsung at 94–95.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues: “The structure associated with this claim is expressly described in ’319
patent at Figures 4–8, 5:34–6:8, 7:20–31, 7:53–55, 8:13–36, 10:18–24, 12:52–13:5, 13:15–22,
13:41–67, and originally filed claims 1, 3, 4, 5 & 10. See also Ex. 10, ¶¶ 137–138, 144.” Dkt.
No. 123 at 27.
Defendants argue this term together with the “means for both isolating . . .” term, which
is addressed above. See Dkt. No. 127 at 29–30.
Plaintiff replies that “the Court previously found that a POSA would understand that a
‘pre-determined’ amount of power is definite and refers to the amount ‘needed for proper
operation.’” Dkt. No. 130 at 10 (citing Samsung at 89).
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral arguments as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
Defendants have not sufficiently justified departing from the Samsung analysis or
otherwise shown indefiniteness. See Samsung at 93–95. Likewise, Plaintiff has not sufficiently
justified expanding the corresponding structure beyond “voltage sensing circuit 30.” See id.
at 95; see also Med. Instrumentation, 344 F.3d at 1219 (“[S]tructure disclosed in the

- 82 -

specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly
links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”) (emphasis added; citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court accordingly hereby finds that “means for responding to the voltage drop
across the battery charge controller by modulating the switch to control a quantity of
current supplied to a rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a
predetermined amount of power to operate and the rechargeable battery receives a
remainder of power available from the battery charge controller” is a means-plus-function
term, the claimed function is “responding to the voltage drop across the battery charge
controller by modulating the switch to control a quantity of current supplied to a
rechargeable battery such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount of
power to operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of power available
from the battery charge controller,” and the corresponding structure is “voltage sensing
circuit 30, and equivalents thereof.”
VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’655 PATENT
GG. “USB”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

[No separate proposal as to the ’655 Patent]

“USB is an abbreviation for ‘Universal Serial
Bus,’ which is a computer standard
technology described in Universal Serial Bus
Specification Revision 2.0 and other versions
of this standard promulgated at the time of the
claimed invention.”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 1. Defendants submit that this term appears in Claims 3, 5, and 6 of the
’655 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 1.

- 83 -

In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “Universal Serial Bus as described in
Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this standard at the time
of the claimed invention.” Samsung at 96.
In the parties’ March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they
have agreed upon applying the Samsung construction. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 4. Shortly before
the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with a preliminary
construction identical to the Samsung construction. At the hearing, no party objected to this
construction.
The Court accordingly hereby construes “USB” to mean “Universal Serial Bus as
described in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this
standard at the time of the claimed invention.”
HH. “USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Not a limit; but if a limit, and if a construction The preambles are limiting.
is necessary, “USB-compliant” means
“permitting the electronic system to talk over
USB”
Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A3 at 1; id., Ex. B2 at 15. Plaintiff submits that this term appears in Claim 3
of the ’655 Patent and dependent claims. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A3 at 1.
In Samsung, the Court found that this preamble term is not limiting. Samsung at 98.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “Not limiting.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “‘USB-compliant’ is a statement of intended purpose that was not
relied on during prosecution and is not referenced back in the body of the ’655 claims,” and
- 84 -

“[t]he body of the claims define a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the
preamble phrase does not affect the structure of the claimed invention.” Dkt. No. 123 at 27–28.
Defendants respond that “[i]n the ’655 background, the patentee made it clear that there
were reasons to choose USB ports, to supply charging power to mobile devices rather than using
an AC charger and that USB can only provide limited power.” Dkt. No. 127 at 28 (citing ’655
Patent at 1:17–26).
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral arguments as to this
term.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
here. See Samsung at 96–98. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the
same reasons set forth in Samsung. See id.; see also ’655 Patent at 2:32‒34 (“in one
embodiment”) & 6:22‒24 (“example circuit”).
The Court accordingly hereby finds that the term “USB-compliant charging and
power supply circuit” is not limiting.
II. “power”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

“product of voltage and current”

“electricity” 40

40

Plaintiff previously proposed: “No additional construction necessary at this time (i.e., plain
and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence).” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A3 at 6.
- 85 -

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 5; Dkt. No. 123 at 28; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 3. Defendants submit
that this term appears in Claims 3, 5, 6, and 8 of the ’655 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 5; see
Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 3; see also id., Ex. A3 at 6 (“’655, all claims”).
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “electricity.” Samsung at 99.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “electricity.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues:
The ’319 patent family and the ’655 patent have different specifications, different
inventive groups and different priority dates. Despite this, Defendant[s]
recapitulate[] the same idiosyncratic construction of “power” as meaning voltage
times current. This makes no sense. As the Court previously found, power
simply means “electricity.” [Samsung] at 99; see also Ex. 10, ¶¶ 157–158.
Dkt. No. 123 at 28.
Defendants respond as to this term together with the same term in the ’319 Patent. See
Dkt. No. 127 at 22–24.
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral arguments as to this
term in the ’655 Patent apart from the parties’ arguments as to the same term in the abovediscussed ’319 Patent Family.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
here. See Samsung at 59–61 & 99. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung
for the same reasons set forth in Samsung. See id. Also, Defendants have not shown that the
’655 Patent contains any “product of voltage drop and current” disclosures comparable to
disclosures relied upon by Defendants as the term “power” in the above-discussed ’319 Patent

- 86 -

Family. Instead, Defendants have discussed the deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s expert.
Compare Dkt. No. 127 at 24 with id. at 23. Defendants’ argument as to purported indefiniteness
arising from Plaintiff’s expert’s deposition testimony is unpersuasive. See id. at 24; see also id.,
Ex. 17, Jan. 23, 2018 Fernald dep. at 139:1–16, 142:15–23, 144:8–24 & 145:18–24.
The Court therefore hereby construes “power” to mean “electricity.”
JJ. “reference voltage”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
140).

“a voltage against which a voltage of interest
is compared” 42

“a voltage level against which a voltage of
interest is compared” 41
Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 4. Defendants submit that this term appears in Claims 3 and 8 of the
’655 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 8; id., Ex. A3 at 10 (“’655, all claims”); see Dkt. No. 127
at 25 (“’655: 1, 3, 8”).
In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “a voltage level based on which a
voltage of interest is determined.” Samsung at 101.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with a preliminary construction identical to the Samsung construction.

41

Plaintiff previously proposed: “a voltage level based on which a voltage of interest is
determined.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A3 at 10; Dkt. No. 123 at 28.
42

Defendants previously proposed: “a constant voltage used for comparison purposes.” Dkt.
No. 103, Ex. B2 at 8.
- 87 -

(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues: “In the ’319 patent family . . ., a reference voltage is used to compare
against a voltage. In the ’655 [Patent], the reference voltage is used to ‘determine a minimum
voltage value needed at [an] output node.’ ’655 [Patent], Claim 1. There is no requirement that
the determination be done through a comparison.” Dkt. No. 123 at 28. Plaintiff further argues
that “the ’655 patent makes clear that the reference voltage received from an electronic system
could be information related to a voltage level (e.g., a representation of the voltage level as
digital data).” Id. at 29.
Defendants respond as to this term together with the terms “reference voltage” and
“reference voltage signal” in the ’319 Patent Family, and Defendants urge that “the [Samsung]
construction [as to the ’319 Patent Family] should apply equally to the ’655 patent.” Dkt.
No. 127 at 25; see id. at 25–27. Defendants argue that “[t]he determining element in the claims
is entirely consistent with the reference voltage being an analog voltage.” Id. at 27.
Plaintiff replies:
Defendants appear to have abandoned the argument that a reference voltage must
be a constant voltage, but insist that the ’655 claims require an analog voltage,
rather than a voltage value or voltage level (e.g., a digital representation of a
voltage). Defendants ignore the numerous examples in the intrinsic evidence,
cited in FISI’s opening brief, demonstrating that the reference voltage of the ’655
patent may be a representation of a voltage, rather than the voltage itself.
Dkt. No. 130 at 10 (citations omitted).
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
(2) Analysis
Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
here. See Samsung at 100–01. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for
the same reasons set forth in Samsung. See id.; see also id. at 101 (“the context of this
- 88 -

surrounding claim language demonstrates that ‘reference voltage’ in the claims of the ’655
Patent can be a voltage level, as Plaintiff has proposed, rather than necessarily an actual
electrical voltage”). The recitals of “voltage value” in Claim 1 of the ’655 Patent, cited by
Defendants, as well as the disclosures in the specification cited by Defendants, do not compel
otherwise. Dkt. No. 127 at 25–26; see ’655 Patent at 6:47–53 & 7:50–57.
Likewise, Defendants’ reliance upon Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony regarding
microprocessor voltage outputs is unpersuasive. See Dkt. No. 127, Ex. 17, Jan. 23, 2018 Fernald
dep. at 178:12–179:4, 179:19–180:7 & 181:19–182:12 (“all microprocessors are digital”;
“[s]ome have analog capability added to them”).
At the March 26, 2018 hearing, Defendants urged that the Samsung construction renders
the “determine” step in these claims superfluous. Defendants’ argument, however, appears to
assume that the determined “minimum voltage value” is set the same as the “reference voltage”
value. No such limitation is recited in the claims, and Defendants have not demonstrated,
through disclaimer or otherwise, why this must necessarily be so. Defendants’ argument is thus
unavailing.
Finally, to whatever extent Defendants maintain that these terms should be construed as
requiring a “constant” voltage (see Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 8), Defendants have not justified any
such limitation.
The Court therefore hereby construes “reference voltage” in the ’655 Patent to mean
“a voltage level based on which a voltage of interest is determined.”

- 89 -

KK. “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“a switch”:
Plain meaning 43

“a switch”:
“single switch”
“a semiconductor switch”:
“single semiconductor switch”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B2 at 4; Dkt. No. 123 at 30. The parties submit that these terms appear in
Claims 3–11 of the ’655 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A3 at 2; see id., Ex. B2 at 4 (“’655: 3, 6, 8,
10, 11”).
In Samsung, the Court construed these terms to have their plain meaning. Samsung
at 102.
In their March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they have
agreed upon the following construction: “Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary.” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 4. Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing,
the Court provided the parties with the following preliminary construction: “Plain and ordinary
meaning; no construction necessary.” At the March 26, 2018 hearing, no party objected to this
construction.
The Court therefore hereby construes “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch” as
follows: “Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction necessary.”

43

Plaintiff previously proposed: “‘a switch’: one or more devices or circuits that control
conductance between two nodes and that are capable of operating in on, off and non-transient
linear modes;” and “‘semiconductor switch’: switch as defined above that comprises a
semiconductor material.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A3 at 2–3.
- 90 -

LL. “adjust”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
necessary

“change”

Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A3 at 9; id., Ex. B2 at 6; Dkt. No. 123 at 30; Dkt. No. 127 at 30; Dkt. No. 135,
Ex. A2 at 8. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 5 of the ’655 Patent. Dkt.
No. 103, Ex. A3 at 9; id., Ex. B2 at 6; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A2 at 8.
This term was not presented as a disputed term in Samsung.
Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
with the following preliminary construction: “change.”
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits that “[i]f the voltage at the output deviates slightly from the desired
output voltage, the IC senses this through the feedback and makes the appropriate adjustments to
return the voltage to the desired value.” Dkt. No. 123 at 30. Plaintiff argues that “[t]hus, the
claim does not require that the output voltage be changed.” Id.
Defendants respond that “FISI’s reasoning does not support its conclusion and would
render the limitation superfluous.” Dkt. No. 127 at 30.
Plaintiff replies that “Defendants do not explain why a jury could not understand this
term from its plain meaning, and their construction finds no support in the intrinsic evidence.”
Dkt. No. 130 at 10.
(2) Analysis
This disputed term appears in Claim 5 of the ’655 Patent, which depends from Claim 3.
Claims 3 and 5 of the ’655 Patent recite (emphasis added):

- 91 -

3. A USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit comprising:
switch-mode battery charging circuitry adapted to:
receive external power from an external power source; and
supply output power, through an output node, to:
an electronic system of an electronic
communication device; and
a battery, via a switch;
said switch-mode battery charging circuitry having an integrated circuit
and an inductor, said integrated circuit arranged to cooperate with said inductor to
supply said output power with a current of greater magnitude than current of said
external power;
battery isolation circuitry adapted to:
receive a reference voltage from said electronic system;
determine, based on said reference voltage, a minimum
voltage value needed at said output node;
sense that a voltage at said output node is below said
minimum voltage value; and
control, responsive to said sensing, said switch to restrict
current of said output power to said battery, thereby
increasing a power allocated to said electronic system.
***
5. The USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit of claim 3 wherein said
voltage at said output node is fed back to said integrated circuit and in response,
said integrated circuit is arranged to adjust said voltage value at said output
node.
Plaintiff appears to argue that “adjust[ing]” the voltage value can encompass maintaining
a desired voltage value. Yet, as Defendants have argued, Plaintiff’s suggestion of “mak[ing] the
appropriate adjustments to return the voltage to the desired value” (Dkt. No. 123 at 30) includes
the concept of “changing” that Defendants have proposed. That is, “return[ing] the voltage to
the desired value” involves changing the voltage from an undesired value to the desired value.
This comports with the common meaning of “adjust” as involving a change. See Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1314 (“In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person
of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such

- 92 -

cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
understood words.”).
The Court therefore hereby construes “adjust” to mean “change.”
VII. CONCLUSION
The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of the
patents-in-suit.
As set forth above, the Court finds that “wherein the supply current passes through the
external driving semiconductor rather than through the battery charge controller” and “whereby
.
load current passes through the external driving semiconductor instead of the battery charge
controller” render Claim 2 of the ’319 Patent and Claim 2 of the ’514 Patent indefinite.
The parties are ordered to not refer to each other’s claim construction positions in the
presence of the jury. Likewise, in the presence of the jury, the parties are ordered to refrain from
mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual definitions adopted by the Court.
The Court’s reasoning in this order binds the testimony of any witnesses, and any reference to
the claim construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by
the Court.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 2nd day of April, 2018.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

- 93 -