Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Filing
138
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 1/7/2019. (nkl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
POLARIS POWERLED TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00715-JRG
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD,
Defendants.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Polaris PowerLED Technologies,
LLC (“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 113, filed on October 5, 2018),1 the response of Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (collectively
“Defendants”) (ECF No. 121, filed on October 19, 2018), and Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 123, filed
on October 26, 2018). The Court held a hearing on the issues of claim construction on November
15, 2018. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by the parties at the hearing
and in their briefing, the Court issues this Order.
Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (ECF No.) and pin cites
are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
1
1
Table of Contents
I.
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3
II.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................... 6
A.
Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 6
B.
Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term ........................................ 8
III.
PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................................... 10
IV.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................... 10
A.
B.
The “dark level bias” terms................................................................................... 21
C.
V.
The “multiplier” and “multiplying” terms. ........................................................... 10
“an overdrive clamp circuit coupled to the brightness control signal to
limit its amplitude to a predefined range”............................................................. 26
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 29
2
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,223,117 (the “’117 Patent” or the “Patent”).
The ’117 Patent is entitled Method and Apparatus to Control Display Brightness with Ambient
Light Correction. The application leading to the ’117 Patent was filed on December 17, 2008 and
it issued on July 17, 2012. The ’117 Patent includes a priority claim to an application filed on
February 9, 2004.
In general, the ’117 Patent is directed to technology for setting the brightness level of an
electronic display based on the ambient light level. The basic technology may be understood with
reference to Figures 1 and 3, reproduced here and annotated by the Court. Figure 1 is a block
diagram illustrating the main functions of an exemplary brightness control circuit. Three signals,
a “dark level bias,” “light sensor” (in red), and a user input “dimming control” (in green) are
combined to create a brightness control signal to set the brightness of a display. Figure 3 depicts
the brightness control signal as a function of sensed light level (“Ambient Light” in red) and user
input (“Duty” in green). As the ambient light level increases, so too does the amplitude of the
brightness control signal. The amplitude is clamped so it does not exceed a certain level and
thereby overdrive the display. This results in a flat top to the curves in Figure 3 at a 100% of the
display saturation voltage. The “dark level bias” and user input combine to provide a minimum
display brightness when the ambient light level is near zero (i.e., when it is dark). ’117 Patent col.4
l.45 – col.5 l.14, col.5 l.44 – col.6 l.21.
3
Figure 4, reproduced here and annotated by the Court, is a schematic diagram of a brightness
control circuit with a multiplier to selectively combine signals from the light sensor (402 in red)
and user input (“PWM input” in
green). When automatic mode is
selected (AUTO = high), the lightsensor (“ISRC”) and user-input
(“dutycycle”) signals are multiplied
together as shown in the brightnesscontrol-signal
(BCS1)
equation
reproduced here. In addition to
multiplying the user-input and light-sensor signals, the circuit adds a dark level bias to the light
sensor signal and clamps the amplitude of the brightness control signal approximately at the light
sensor’s compliance voltage. When manual mode is selected (AUTO = low), the circuit does not
multiply the user-input and light-sensor signals. Id. at col.6 l.22 – col.8 l.9.
Figure 8, reproduced here and annotated by the Court, is a schematic diagram of another
brightness control circuit with a multiplier to
selectively combine signals from the light sensor
(802 in red) and user input (potentiometer “R3,”
812 in green). When automatic mode is selected
(AUTO = high), the light-sensor output (ISRC)
and user input (potentiometer setting) are
multiplied together as shown in the equation
reproduced here. In addition to multiplying the
4
user-input and light-sensor signals, the circuit adds a dark level bias to the light sensor signal and
clamps the amplitude of the brightness control signal at the light sensor’s compliance voltage.
When manual mode is selected (AUTO = low), the circuit does not multiply the user-input and
light-sensor signals. Id. at col.9 l.37 – col.10 l.32.
The abstract of the Patent provides:
An ambient light sensor produces a current signal that varies linearly with the level
of ambient light. The current signal is multiplied by a user dimming preference to
generate a brightness control signal that automatically compensates for ambient
light variations in visual information display systems. The multiplying function
provides noticeable user dimming control at relatively high ambient light levels.
Claims 1 and 15 of the Patent, exemplary device and method claims respectively, recite as
follows:
1. A brightness control circuit with selective ambient light correction
comprising:
a first input configured to receive a user signal indicative of a user selectable
brightness setting;
a light sensor configured to sense ambient light and to output a sensing signal
indicative of the ambient light level;
a multiplier configured to selectively generate a combined signal based on both
the user signal and the sensing signal; and
a dark level bias configured to adjust the combined signal to generate a
brightness control signal that is used to control a brightness level of a visible
display such that the brightness control signal is maintained above a
predetermined level when the ambient light level decreases to approximately
zero.
15. A method to selectively provide ambient light correction, said method
comprising:
receiving a user input signal indicative of a user selectable brightness setting;
selectively multiplying the input signal with a sense signal to generate a
combined signal, wherein the sense signal indicates an ambient light level;
and
adjusting the combined signal with a dark level bias to generate a brightness
control signal for controlling brightness of a visible display such that the
brightness control signal is maintained above a predetermined level when the
ambient light level decreases to approximately zero.
5
II.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
A.
Claim Construction
“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 v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by
considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; 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. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
861. The general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim
term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure
Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There is a heavy presumption
that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”)
(vacated on other grounds).
“The claim construction inquiry … begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the
claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[I]n
all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’” Apple Inc. v. Motorola,
Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 1998)). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning, because
claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim
6
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. (quoting
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (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.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “‘Although the specification may aid the court in
interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
appearing in the 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 MicroDevices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is
improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if
it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO
and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic
7
Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution
history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
Although extrinsic evidence can also 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
(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). 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 not helpful to a court. Id. Extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent
and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court
recently explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction:
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. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
meaning”). 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.
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
B.
Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according
to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the
8
specification or during prosecution.”2 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning
in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding lexicography or
disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, 750 F.3d at 1309.
To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
“with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M
Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the
general rule, such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to
cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
2
9
III.
PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
The parties submit competing proposals for the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Defendants submit:
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (March 2003) would have
at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or optics, and at least
three (3) years of experience with analog circuit design and optical sensors.
ECF No. 121 at 6. Plaintiff submits:
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’117 patent
would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or
computer science, or 2-4 years of experience in the field of visual displays and
related technologies.
ECF No. 123 at 5 n.2.
The Court understands that these two proposals regarding one of ordinary skill in the art differ.
That said, for the purpose of resolving the claim-construction disputes presented to the Court, there
is no meaningful difference between the parties competing proposals.
IV.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
A.
The “multiplier” and “multiplying” terms.
Disputed Term3
“a multiplier configured to
selectively generate a
combined signal based on
both the user signal and the
sensing signal”
•
Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
a multiplier configured to
generate on a selective basis a
combined signal based on
both the user signal and the
sensing signal
Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
a multiplier configured to
generate a combined signal
that is the mathematical
product of the user signal and
the sensing signal
’117 Patent Claim 1
3
For all term charts in this order, the claims in which the term is found are listed with the term
but: (1) only the highest-level claim in each dependency chain is listed and (2) only asserted claims
identified in the parties’ P.R. 4-5 Joint Notice Regarding Claim Construction Chart (ECF No. 129)
are listed.
10
Disputed Term3
“selectively multiplying the
input signal with a sense
signal to generate a combined
signal, wherein the sense
signal indicates an ambient
light level”
•
Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
multiplying on a selective
basis the input signal with a
sense signal to generate a
combined signal, wherein the
sense signal indicates an
ambient light level
Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
multiplying the input signal
with a sense signal to
generate a combined signal
that is the mathematical
product of the input signal
and the sense signal
’117 Patent Claim 15
Because the parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
related, the Court addresses the terms together.
The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits: These terms are directed to combining two signals using multiplication but
are not limited to combinations that are the mathematical product of the signals. The ’117 Patent
discloses and claims embodiments of combinations that are not the simple product of the two
signals. For example, Claim 3, which depends from Claim 1, recites: “the multiplier multiplies a
sum of the user signal and the sensing signal by the dark level bias to generate an output signal
corresponding to the brightness control signal.” In these embodiments, the multiplier generates a
combined signal “based on” the two signals, and though the combination involves multiplication,
it is not limited to the product of the two signals. Further, the claims as originally filed included a
“mathematical product” limitation that was deleted during prosecution. It would be improper to
construe the multiplier/multiplying terms to be limited to a mathematical product when doing so
would exclude exemplary embodiments, reinsert a limitation that was deleted during prosecution,
and give no effect to “based on” in the claim language. ECF No. 113 at 11–20, 22–27.
Plaintiff further submits: “selectively” and “wherein the sense signal indicates an ambient
light level” must be given effect in the construction of the multiplier/multiplying terms.
Defendants’ proposed constructions improperly delete these terms. Id. at 9–11, 20–22, 27.
11
In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic
evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’117 Patent fig.1, col.1 ll.60–67, col.2 ll.7–
27, col.2 ll.31–43, col.3 ll.24–37, col.3 ll.48–51, col.4 ll.46–52, col.5 ll.37–38, col.7 ll.18–32,
col.12 ll.15–18. ’117 Patent File Wrapper March 13, 2009 Preliminary Amendment (Plaintiff’s
Ex. D, ECF No. 113-5), May 20, 2009 Supplemental Preliminary Amendment (Plaintiff’s Ex. E,
ECF No. 113-6), November 7, 2011 Office Action (Plaintiff’s Ex. F, ECF No. 113-7), January 23,
2012 Response to Office Action (Plaintiff’s Ex. G, ECF No. 113-8), March 14, 2012 Notice of
Allowability (Plaintiff’s Ex. H, ECF No. 113-9). Extrinsic evidence: American Heritage
Dictionary (3d ed. 1996), “selective” (Plaintiff’s Ex. B, ECF No. 113-3); Random House
Webster’s College Dictionary (2001), “selective” (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ECF No. 113-4).
Defendants
respond:
In the context
of the surrounding claim
language, the
multiplier/multiplying terms are properly understood to: (1) receive two input signals, (2) combine
those signals by multiplying them, and then (3) output the combined signal for separate adjustment
by the “dark level bias.” This properly does not encompass embodiments in which the output of
the multiplier—the “combined signal”—is not separately adjusted by the “dark level bias.” For
example, it does not encompass embodiments in which the “dark level bias” is included as part of
the “combined signal” instead of being applied to the “combined signal,” such as the embodiment
depicted in Figure 1 of the ’117 Patent. The Patent describes multiplier or multiplying
combinations as necessarily producing a “mathematical product” of the combined signals. This
comports with the customary meaning of the term in the art: a multiplier calculates the
mathematical product of two inputs. In the Patent and in the art, the multiplier/multiplying terms
do not perform operations other than multiplication. Claim 3 does not change this. The claim is
indefinite since it requires the “dark level bias” to be an input to the multiplier, but Claim 1, from
12
which Claim 3 depends, requires the “dark level bias” to be applied after the multiplier stage.
Further, Claim 3 recites the “multiplier multiplies a sum [of two signals]” by the “dark level
bias”—it does not generate the sum of the two signals. Finally, issued Claim 1 was modified during
prosecution not to delete the requirement that the multiplier create a mathematical product, but to
clarify that the inputs to the multiplier are “both” the user signal and the sensing signal. Issued
Claim 15 was not modified in this way. ECF No. 121 at 7–20.
Defendants further respond: “Selectively” in the claim language is given effect in its proposed
construction in that the construction clarifies “that the combined signal is a ‘mathematical product’
of both the user signal and the sensing signal.” In any event, Defendants are not opposed to
including “selectively” or “on a selective basis” in the construction. Id. at 16.
In addition to the claims themselves, Defendants cite the following intrinsic and extrinsic
evidence to support their position: Intrinsic evidence: ’117 Patent figs.1–3, col.1 l.65 – col.2 l.3,
col.2 ll.31–36, col.3 ll.31–37; ’117 Patent File Wrapper May 20, 2009 Supplemental Preliminary
Amendment (Defendants’ Ex. H, ECF No. 121-9); U.S. Patent Application No. 60/543,0944
(February 9, 2004) (Defendants’ Ex. B, ECF No. 121-3); U.S. Application No. 11/023,2955 File
Wrapper December 5, 2007 Response to Office Action (Defendants’ Ex. C, ECF No. 121-4).
Extrinsic evidence: IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed.
2000), “multiplier” (Defendants’ Ex. D, ECF No. 121-5); Stan Gibilisco, The Illustrated
Dictionary of Electronics (8th ed. 2001), “digital multiplier” (Defendants’ Ex. E, ECF No. 121-6);
Jan Rabaey, et al., Digital Integrated Circuits: A Design Perspective, “multiplier” (2d ed. 2004)
The ’117 Patent includes a claim of priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 60/543,094. ’117
Patent, at [60] Related U.S. Application Data.
5
The ’117 Patent includes a claim of priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 11/023,295. ’117
Patent, at [63] Related U.S. Application Data.
4
13
(Defendants’ Ex. F, ECF No. 121-7); John Wakerly, Digital Design: Principles & Practices (3d
ed. 1999), “combinatorial multiplier” (Defendants’ Ex. G, ECF No. 121-8); Hobbs Decl.6 at ¶¶
25–32, 36–39 (Defendants’ Ex. A, ECF No. 121-2 at 10–18).
Plaintiff replies: The claims require that the “combined signal” generated by the
multiplier/multiplying be “based on” the user/input signal and the sensing/sense signal, not that it
be the “mathematical product” of those signals. This comports with the Patent’s description of the
invention, which provides using a “multiplying function” that includes but is not limited to
generating a “mathematical product.” For instance, as described and claimed, a multiplying
function may perform both multiplication and addition (e.g., y = mx + b). The extrinsic evidence
relied upon by Defendants is of little value since it is all divorced from the Patent’s specification
and relates only to hardware when the Patent includes software implementations. ECF No. 123 at
5–9.
Plaintiff cites further intrinsic evidence to support its position: U.S. Application No.
11/023,295 File Wrapper December 5, 2007 Response to Office Action (Defendants’ Ex. C, ECF
No. 121-4).
Analysis
The fundamental issue in dispute is whether the “combined signal” generated by the
“multiplier” of Claim 1 and the “multiplying” of Claim 15 is necessarily limited to only to the
“mathematical product” of the user/input signal and the sensing/sense signal. While “multiplier”
and “multiplying” require generating a mathematical product, in the context of the ’117 Patent
Declaration of Dr. Philip C.D. Hobbs, Ph.D. The Court notes that the “declaration” submitted by
Dr. Hobbs is not a sworn statement, it is an unsworn expert report. As such, its admissibility in a
claim-construction proceeding is suspect. Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not object and the Court
considered Dr. Hobbs’ statements in ruling on the claim-construction issues presented herein.
6
14
they are not limited to generating a product—the “combined signal” is not necessarily solely the
mathematical product of the signals combined.
The language of Claim 15, “selectively multiplying the input signal with a sense signal to
generate a combined signal,” expressly requires multiplying the input signal by the sense signal.
This plainly means that the combined signal includes the product of the input and sense signals.
As set forth below, this does not mean that the combined signal is limited to that product.
Understanding the language of Claim 1, “a multiplier configured to selectively generate a
combined signal based on both the user signal and the sensing signal,” requires understanding a
“multiplier.” The Court agrees with Defendants that a multiplier multiplies. More specifically, a
multiplier multiplies the inputs of the multiplier. The exemplary multipliers of the Patent all
generate the product of their inputs. For example, the Figure 4 multiplier configured to combine
“a light sensor output with a user adjustable PWM logic signal” generates the product of those two
inputs. ’117 Patent col.6 ll.22–32, col.7 ll.15–23. Similarly, the Figure 8 multiplier “to combine a
light sensor output with a user adjustable potentiometer” generates the product of those two inputs.
Id. at col.9 ll.38–46, col.10 ll.5–13. Likewise, the Figure 9 multiplier “to combine a light sensor
output with a user adjustable digital word” generates the product of these two inputs. Id. at col.10
ll.33–43, col.11 ll.6–14. That a multiplier multiplies its inputs together comports with the
customary meaning of the term. See, e.g., IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
Standards Terms 716 (7th ed. 2000) (defining “multiplier” as: “A device that has two or more
inputs and whose output is a representation of the product of the quantities represented by the input
signals.”), ECF No. 121-5 at 11. Thus, the combined signal generated by the multiplier includes
the product of the user and sensing signals. As set forth below, this does not mean that the
combined signal is limited to that product.
15
Requiring the multiplier to multiply the user and sensing signals together does not fail to give
effect to the amendments made to the claims during prosecution. The claim language at issue was
changed from “a multiplier configured to selectively generate a combined signal based on a
mathematical product of the user signal and the sensing signal” to “a multiplier configured to
selectively generate a combined signal based on both the user signal and the sensing signal.” Rather
than changing the nature of the multiplier, from something that necessarily multiplies its inputs to
something that multiplies some indeterminant values, this amendment more likely addresses a
fundamental ambiguity in the original claim language. Namely, does the combined signal yielded
by the multiplier of the original claim language simply include the mathematical product of the
user and sensing signals or does it necessarily include that product multiplied by some unspecified
input or value? This ambiguity is resolved by the claim amendment: the multiplier generates a
product of the input user and sensing signals. Simply, the claim amendment does not rise to a
special definition of “multiplier” that strays both from the customary meaning of “multiplier” and
the other use of “multiplier” in the Patent.
Nor does requiring a multiplier to multiply its inputs render Claim 3 indefinite. Claim 3 is
directed to the multiplier’s capability to generate “an output signal corresponding to the brightness
control signal.” This is not directed to the multiplier’s capability to generate “a combined signal
based on both the user signal and the sensing signal.” Specifically, Claim 3 does not equate “a sum
of the user signal and the sensing signal” with the combined signal. Rather, that the claim refers to
“a sum” instead of “the combined signal” indicates a difference between these two combinations
of signals. As set forth below, the multiplier is not limited to only generating the product of the
user and sensing signals. However, Claim 3 does not mandate that the multiplier may combine its
inputs simply by summing them.
16
That a multiplier necessarily multiplies, or that multiplying necessarily yields a product, does
not mean that the combined signal generated by the multiplier or multiplying is limited to a product
of the values multiplied. Similarly, the “multiplier” of the Patent is defined by what it must do
(multiply its inputs together), not by what is must not do. That is, the combined signal may include
information other than the product and the multiplier may be able to generate values other than the
product of the user and sensing signals. The Patent is replete with examples of such.
One example of a multiplier that does more than multiply is depicted in Figure 4 of the Patent.
The Figure 4 embodiment of “a multiplier circuit to combine a light sensor output with a user
adjustable PWM logic signal” includes the product, but it also includes scaling factors and a dark
level bias. The brightness control signal generated by this exemplary multiplier (when selected)
is:
In this equation, “dutycycle” is the user input, “ISRC” is the output of the light sensor, and R1
through R4 are the values of resistors in a resistor network. The first term in the major brackets,
the “VCC” term, “corresponds to a scaled dark bias level of the brightness control signal in total
ambient darkness.” The second term, the “ISRC” term, “introduces the effect of the visible light
sensor.” One circuit, the “multiplier circuit,” multiplies the user input and the light-sensor signal
and also generates a dark level bias to offset the effect of the visible light sensor in total darkness.
“The network of resistors … helps to provide the dark bias level and to scale the product of the
sensor current signal and the user adjustable PWM logic signal.” ’117 Patent col.5 l.22 – col.8 l.9.
17
Another example of a multiplier that does more than multiply is depicted in Figure 8 of the
Patent. The Figure 8 embodiment of “a multiplier circuit to combine a light sensor output with a
user adjustable potentiometer (R3)” includes scaled and summed values in addition to the product.
The brightness control signal generated by this exemplary multiplier (when selected) is:
In this equation, “R3” is the user input (a potentiometer setting), “ISRC” is the output of the light
sensor, and R1 and R2 are the values of resistors in a resistor network. The first bracketed term,
the “VCC” term, “corresponds to the brightness control signal in total ambient darkness.” The
second bracketed term, the “ISRC” term, “introduces the effect of the visible light sensor.” One
circuit, the “multiplier circuit,” multiplies the user input and the light-sensor signal and generates
a dark level bias to offset the effect of the visible light sensor in total darkness. Id. at col.9 l.39 –
col.10 l.32.
An example of a multiplier circuit that does more than multiply the user signal with the sense
signal is depicted in Figure 9. The Figure 9 embodiment of a “a multiplier circuit to combine a
light sensor output with a user adjustable digital word” includes scaled and summed values in
addition to the product. The brightness control signal generated by this exemplary multiplier is:
In this equation, “binary % fullscale” is the user input (the digital word), “ISRC” is the output of
the light sensor, and R1 through R3 are the values of resistors in a resistor network. As with the
18
embodiments of Figure 4 and Figure 8, the output of the multiplier includes, in addition to the
product of the user and sense signals, a “VCC” term to provide an offset to the sense-signal term
to provide a signal in total darkness. Id. at col.10 l.33 – col.11 l.27.
There is no support in these embodiments for the temporal order of operations proposed by
Defendants. Specifically, reading the claims to first generate a combined signal and then separately
and subsequently adjust that combined signal by a dark level bias would exclude the Figure 4,
Figure 8, and Figure 9 embodiments from the claims. It would also exclude the Figure 10
embodiment, as that embodiment operates substantially the same as the Figure 4 embodiment. Id.
at col.11 ll.39–48. This is in addition to excluding the Figure 1 embodiment, as expressly
advocated by Defendants. To be clear, Defendants are advocating, implicitly or explicitly, to
construe the claims to exclude every exemplary embodiment of a “multiplier circuit” except that
depicted as a functional block in the block diagram of Figure 2. The Court declines to do so.
In addition to excluding most of the exemplary
embodiments, Defendants seek a construction that calls
into question the validity of several claims that depend
from Claim 1. For example, Defendants expressly
argue that their construction of Claim 1 renders Claim
3 invalid as indefinite. Implicit in Defendants
construction is that Claims 10 through 12 may also be
invalid as indefinite. These claims, reproduced here and
annotated by the Court, call for the multiplier to
“generate the brightness control signal.” Claim 1 calls
for the multiplier to “generate a combined signal.”
19
10. The brightness control circuit of
claim 1, wherein the multiplier is
implemented with a pair of currentsteering diodes having commonly
connected anodes coupled to the sensing
signal and respective cathodes coupled to
the user signal and a network of resistors
to generate the brightness control signal.
11. The brightness control circuit of
claim 1, wherein the user signal
corresponds to a setting of a user
adjustable potentiometer, and the
multiplier is implemented with an
isolation diode having an anode coupled
to the sensing signal and a cathode
coupled to the user adjustable
potentiometer and a network of resistors
to generate the brightness control signal.
12. The brightness control circuit of
claim 1, wherein the user signal
corresponds to a digital word, and the
multiplier is implemented with a digitalto-analog converter configured to receive
the digital word and a reference signal
determined by the sensing signal to
generate the brightness control signal.
Thus, the dependent claims expressly state that the purpose of the multiplier is not only to
“generate a combined signal” but also to “generate the brightness control signal.” Yet Claim 1 also
requires “a dark level bias configured to adjust the combined signal to generate a brightness control
signal.” Defendants’ construction, and its argument, are premised on the dark-level-bias
adjustment to generate the brightness control signal being separate from and subsequent to the
operation of the multiplier. Claims 10 through 12 require that the same multiplier that generates
the combined signal also generates the brightness control signal. Defendants’ construction and the
express language of the claims are thus in conflict. The express language of the claims governs.
Ultimately, Defendants suggest construing the claims in a way that threatens to exclude almost
all the exemplary embodiments and calls into question the validity of several dependent claims.
To the extent Defendants’ extrinsic evidence suggests doing so, it contradicts the plain meaning
of the claims mandated by the intrinsic evidence and should therefore be discounted. See Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that a court
should “discount” or not “rely on” extrinsic evidence that is “at odds” or “contradicts” the claim
constructions ascertained by the intrinsic evidence).
Finally, “selectively” and “wherein the sense signal indicates an ambient light level” must be
given weight in the Court’s construction. Defendants’ constructions do not do so.7 Plaintiff’s
proposed rewrite of “selectively” as “on a selective basis” offers no clarity to an otherwise plain
term. These terms will be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further
construction.
Accordingly, the Court construes the “multiplier” and “multiplying” terms as follows:
However, at the hearing, Defendants indicated they did not oppose including “selectively” in the
construction. (See ECF No. 135, Hr’g Tr. at 16:17–23.)
7
20
•
“a multiplier configured to selectively generate a combined signal based on both
the user signal and the sensing signal” means “a multiplier configured to
selectively generate a combined signal based on both the user signal and the
sensing signal, wherein the combined signal includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, the product of the user signal and the sensing signal”; and
•
“selectively multiplying the input signal with a sense signal to generate a
combined signal, wherein the sense signal indicates an ambient light level” means
“selectively multiplying the input signal with a sense signal to generate a
combined signal, wherein the sense signal indicates an ambient light level and
wherein the combined signal includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the
product of the input signal and the sense signal.”
B.
The “dark level bias” terms.
Disputed Term
“a dark level bias configured
to adjust the combined
signal”
•
’117 Patent Claim 1
“adjusting the combined
signal with a dark level bias”
•
Plaintiff’s Proposed
Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
Construction
a dark level bias (i.e., a value) a predetermined value that is
configured to adjust (i.e.,
added to the combined signal
change) the combined signal
’117 Patent Claim 15
adjusting (i.e., changing) the
combined signal with a dark
level bias (i.e., a value)
adding a predetermined value
to the combined signal
Because the parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
related, the Court addresses the terms together.
The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits: As expressed in the claims, the “dark level bias” is used to “adjust” the
combined signal to generate a brightness control signal and maintain the brightness control signal
21
above a predetermined level. While the claims expressly require that the “brightness control
signal” is “maintained above a predetermined level,” there is no requirement that the “dark level
bias” itself be predetermined. Rather, the claims expressly allow that the “dark level bias” may not
be predetermined. Specifically, dependent Claims 2 and 17 expressly allow that the adjustment
provided by the “dark level bias” depends on the “user selectable brightness setting” (Claim 2) or
the “the input signal” (Claim 17). The adjustment is not necessarily a simple addition to the
combined signal. Rather, the claims allow other adjustments. Specifically, Claim 3 requires that
the sum of the user signal and sensing signal (the combined signal) is multiplied by the “dark level
bias.” ECF No. 113 at 27–33.
In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic
evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’117 Patent col.5 ll.20–27, col.12 ll.15–18.
Extrinsic evidence: American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1996), “adjust” (Plaintiff’s Ex. B, ECF
No. 113-3); Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001), “adjust” (Plaintiff’s Ex. C, ECF
No. 113-4).
Defendants respond: “Dark level bias” is used in the ’117 Patent to denote a predetermined
value that is added to the combined signal to maintain the brightness control above a predetermined
level. In the description of the invention, the “dark level bias” is uniformly presented as an offset
that is added to another signal—the Patent “does not contemplate the dark level bias being involved
in any mathematical operation other than addition to another signal.” The Patent’s usage of “dark
level bias” comports with customary meaning of “bias” in the art, which is a constant deviation
from a reference value. Neither Claim 2 nor Claim 17 mandates departure from this meaning of
bias. Rather, these claims denote an adjustment that varies depending on the user selectable
22
brightness setting while holding the “dark level bias” constant at a predetermined level. ECF No.
121 at 20–30.
In addition to the claims themselves, Defendants cite the following intrinsic and extrinsic
evidence to support their position: Intrinsic evidence: ’117 Patent figs.1– 4, 8–10, col.2 ll.57–61,
col.3 ll.21–23, col.5 ll.15–24, col.7 ll.17–32, col.8 ll.2–5, col.8 ll.51–55, col.10 ll.8–16, col.11 ll.6–
15. Extrinsic evidence: Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, “bias” (2002) (Defendants’
Ex. I, ECF No. 121-10); Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill, The Art of Electronics 70 (2d ed. 1989)
(Defendants’ Ex. J, ECF No. 121-11 at 19); Hobbs Decl. at ¶¶ 40, 42, 43, 45, 47–49 (Defendants’
Ex. A, ECF No. 121-2 at 18–21).
Plaintiff replies: The meaning of “dark level bias” is apparent from the surrounding claim
language. Specifically, it is a value (as the parties agree) used to adjust the combined signal in
order to generate a brightness control signal that is maintained above a predetermined level.
Defendants’ extrinsic evidence is either inapposite or supports Plaintiff’s constructions. The
extrinsic evidence improperly fails to account for the full disclosure of the Patent, which is not
limited to hardware embodiments. With respect to whether a “bias” is predetermined, Defendants’
Newton’s Telecom Dictionary supports that a bias may vary in that it defines bias based on an
average of a set of values, which may vary. ECF No. 123 at 9–13.
Plaintiff cites further intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic
evidence: ’117 Patent col.2 ll.7–16, col.5 ll.37–38; Petition, Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v.
PolarisLED Techs., LLC, IPR2018-01262, paper 4 (PTAB June 15, 2018) (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1, ECF
No. 123-2). Extrinsic evidence: Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, “bias” (2002)
(Defendants’ Ex. I, ECF No. 121-10).
23
Analysis
There are two fundamental issues in dispute: First, whether the “dark level bias” is necessarily
predetermined. It is not. Second, whether “adjust”/“adjusting” necessarily means adding. It does
not.
The “dark level bias” is not necessarily predetermined. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that
“bias,” as it is customarily used, is not necessarily predetermined, or constant. One dictionary of
record provides that “bias” is a “systemic deviation of a value from a reference value” or “[t]he
amount by which the average of a set of values departs from a reference value.” Harry Newton,
Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 95 (2002), ECF No. 121-10 at 4. Defendants inexplicably equate
“systemic” from this definition with “constant.” The Court does not understand it this way. Rather,
a systemic deviation is one defined by the system, as opposed to being random. The Newton’s
definitions allow that a bias may vary with the values or system state defining the bias.
Some claims may require the bias to be variable or determinable but not necessarily
predetermined. For example, Claim 1 requires the “dark level bias” is “configured to adjust the
combined signal to generate a brightness control signal” in a way that maintains the brightness
control signal “above a predetermined level.” Claim 2, which depends from Claim 1, requires the
dark-level-bias adjustment “is dependent on the user selectable brightness setting.” The Patent is
clear that the user brightness setting may vary. See, e.g., ’117 Patent col.3 ll.21–22. Thus, a
predetermined level is a function of a value that expressly may vary and the dark level bias. This
suggests that, in order to maintain the brightness control signal above a predetermined level, the
bias may vary if the user setting varies.
“Adjust” (Claim 1) and “adjusting” (Claim 15) with the dark level bias is not limited to adding
the dark level bias to the combined signal. Claim 3 uses the product of the dark level bias and the
24
sum of the user and sensing signals to generate the brightness control signal. This is different than
just adding the dark level bias to the combined signal. Claim 4, in contrast, expressly requires the
“dark level bias is added to the combined signal.” If “adjust” meant “add,” there would be no need
to specify “added” in Claim 4. Indeed, Claim 4 may be entirely superfluous under Defendants’
claim construction. Similarly, Claim 18, which depends from Claim 15, requires “the dark level
bias is added to the combined signal.” Again, if “adjusting” meant “adding,” there would be no
need to separately specify that the dark level bias is “added.” Finally, as described above in the
section on “multiplier,” the dark level bias adjustments of the exemplary embodiments (other than
Figure 2) are more complex than a simple addition. Indeed, even the Figure 2 embodiment includes
scaling factors in the adjustment using the dark level bias to generate the brightness control signal.
Id. at col.5 ll.22–27. “Adjust” and “adjusting,” specifically with respect to using the dark level bias
to generate the brightness control signal from the combined signal, are broader than “add” and
“adding.”
The Court declines to insert Plaintiff’s proposed “value” and “change”/“changing” language
into the construction. The parties do not dispute that the dark level bias is a value. Indeed, it is
clear from the context of the surrounding claim language that the dark level bias is a value. There
is no need to clarify this in a claim construction. There is also no need to change “adjust” to
“change” and “adjusting” to “changing.” “Change” is no more accessible or clear than “adjust”
and this “clarification” may inject unnecessary confusion as “adjust” connotes a purposeful change
whereas “change” may be entirely random.
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ proposed “added”/“adding” and “predetermined”
limitations and holds that the “dark level bias” terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without
the need for further construction.
25
C.
“an overdrive clamp circuit coupled to the brightness control signal to limit
its amplitude to a predefined range”
Disputed Term
“an overdrive clamp circuit
coupled to the brightness
control signal to limit its
amplitude to a predefined
range”
•
’117 Patent Claim 6
Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
an overdrive clamp circuit
coupled to the brightness
control signal to limit its
amplitude within predefined
minimum and maximum
levels
Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
an overdrive clamp circuit
coupled to the brightness
control signal to limit the
brightness control signal to be
less than a predetermined
level
The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits: Under its plain meaning, a “predefined range” has both a predefined
minimum and a predefined maximum. As described in the ’117 Patent, the “overdrive clamp
circuit” limits the “range” of the amplitude of the brightness control signal. While the Patent also
describes that the overdrive clamp circuit limits the brightness control signal’s amplitude to less
than a predetermined level, this is consistent with the claim language and other descriptions of the
circuit limiting the amplitude to a range. Limiting an amplitude to a range necessarily limits the
amplitude to less than a level (the upper end of the range). ECF No. 113 at 33–35.
In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic evidence to support
its position:’117 Patent col.2 ll.61–64, col.4 ll.48–61, col.5 ll.24–29.
Defendants respond: The “overdrive clamp circuit” is described as limiting the brightness
control signal to less than a predetermined level, not as also limiting the signal to greater than some
predetermined level. This comports with the customary usage of a “clamp circuit” in the art, which
refers to a circuit that keeps a signal from exceeding a maximum level. The term “range” does not
necessarily entail both a maximum and a minimum—its plain meaning encompasses a “level to
which something is limited,” which includes a range with only an upper level. ECF No. 121 at 30–
34.
26
In addition to the claims themselves, Defendants cite the following intrinsic and extrinsic
evidence to support their position: Intrinsic evidence: ’117 Patent col.2 ll.59–64, col.4 ll.59–61,
col.5 ll.27–29; U.S. Patent Application No. 60/543,094 (February 9, 2004) (Defendants’ Ex. B,
ECF No. 121-3). Extrinsic evidence: IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
Terms (7th ed. 2000), “clamp” (Defendants’ Ex. D, ECF No. 121-5); Stan Gibilisco, The
Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics (8th ed. 2001), “clamping circuit” (Defendants’ Ex. E, ECF
No. 121-6); Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill, The Art of Electronics 221 (2d ed. 1989)
(Defendants’ Ex. J, ECF No. 121-11 at 22); Ralph J. Smith, Electronics: Circuits and Devices 84
(2d ed. 1980) (Defendants’ Ex. K, ECF No. 121-12 at 5); Cambridge Dictionary Online, “range”8
(Defendants’ Ex. L, ECF No. 121-3); Hobbs Decl. at ¶¶ 51, 56, 58 (Defendants’ Ex. A, ECF No.
121-2 at 21–24).
Plaintiff replies: There is no support for redefining a “range” as solely an upper limit. ECF
No. 123 at 13.
Analysis
The issue in dispute is whether the “range” of the claim language includes both an upper and
lower limit. It does in that the clamp limits the absolute value of the brightness control signal to
the predefined range.
An “overdrive clamp circuit” is described in the ’117 Patent as limiting the amplitude of the
brightness control signal to “facilitate[] compliance with input ranges for the display driver.” ’117
Patent col.2 ll.63–64. That is, the clamp prevents the amplitude of the brightness control signal
from straying outside the range of acceptable values for the display driver—it prevents the
brightness control signal from overdriving the display. This is depicted, for example, in Figure 3.
8
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/range
27
The “Brightness Control Voltage” climbs to a peak value of “100%,” the “saturation” level, and
not beyond. To the extent Plaintiff suggests the overdrive clamp circuit necessarily provides some
minimum amplitude, in a manner akin to the dark level bias, the Court disagrees. The clamp is to
prevent overdrive.
The clamp does not necessarily limit the “brightness control signal to less than a
predetermined level.” As the Court understands Defendants’ proposal, this would limit the
brightness control signal to positive DC values and the clamp to an upper positive limit. However,
the Patent does not so limit either the brightness control signal or the clamp. Under its customary
meaning, a clamp circuit may “limit the peak voltage or current.” IEEE 100: The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms 171–72 (7th ed. 2000), ECF No. 121-5 at 13–14. A clamp
may be used to limit both positive and negative extremes, or peaks, of a signal. Ralph J. Smith,
Electronics: Circuits and Devices 84 (2d ed. 1980), ECF No. 121-12 at 5. This suggests that an
“overdrive clamp circuit” may be used to limit either positive or negative extremes. However, the
Court notes that the issue of whether the signal may be positive or negative is not before the Court
and is not affirmatively addressed by the ’117 Patent. Thus, the Court takes no position on this
issue. Even if the brightness control signal in all the exemplary embodiments of the ’117 Patent is
greater than or equal to zero, there is no suggestion that only positive signals may be used to drive
a display, or that the clamp necessarily provides only a positive upper limit. The clamp prevents
the absolute value of the amplitude of the signal from exceeding some value, whether that
amplitude is positive or negative.
Accordingly, the Court construes this term as follows:
•
“an overdrive clamp circuit coupled to the brightness control signal to limit its
amplitude to a predefined range” means “an overdrive clamp circuit coupled to
28
the brightness control signal to limit the absolute value of the brightness control
signal’s amplitude to be less than a predefined level.”
V.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts the constructions set forth above, as summarized in the following table. The
parties are ORDERED that they may not refer, directly or indirectly, to each other’s claimconstruction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the parties are ORDERED to refrain
from mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual definitions adopted by the Court,
in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim-construction proceedings is limited to informing
the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court.
Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the parties
are hereby ORDERED, in good faith, to mediate this case with the designated mediator in this
case. As a part of such mediation, each party shall appear by counsel (with lead and local counsel
present and participating) and by at least one corporate officer possessing sufficient authority and
control to unilaterally make binding decisions for the corporation adequate to address any good
faith offer or counteroffer of settlement that might arise during such mediation. Failure to do so
shall be deemed by the Court as a failure to mediate in good faith and may subject that party to
such sanctions as the Court deems appropriate.
Term
a multiplier configured to selectively generate
a combined signal based on both the user
signal and the sensing signal
Construction
a multiplier configured to selectively generate
a combined signal based on both the user
signal and the sensing signal, wherein the
combined signal includes, but is not
necessarily limited to, the product of the user
signal and the sensing signal
29
Term
selectively multiplying the input signal with a
sense signal to generate a combined signal,
wherein the sense signal indicates an ambient
light level
.
a dark level bias configured to adjust the
combined signal
Construction
selectively multiplying the input signal with a
sense signal to generate a combined signal,
wherein the sense signal indicates an ambient
light level and wherein the combined signal
includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the
product of the input signal and the sense
signal
plain and ordinary meaning
adjusting the combined signal with a dark
level bias
plain and ordinary meaning
an overdrive clamp circuit coupled to the
brightness control signal to limit its amplitude
to a predefined range
an overdrive clamp circuit coupled to the
brightness control signal to limit the absolute
value of the brightness control signal’s
amplitude to be less than a predefined level
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of January, 2019.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
30
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?