Upload
florian-mueller
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
1/241
2013-1397
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
_______________________________________________________________
GEMALTO S.A.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., EXEDEA, INC., GOOGLE,
INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC (also known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.),
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA , LLC,
Defendants-Appellees,
_______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in
Case No. 10-CV-0561, Chief Judge Leonard Davis.
_______________________________________________________________
NON-CONFIDENTIAL BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
GEMALTO S.A.
_______________________________________________________________
Robert A. Cote
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
New York, New York 10036
(212) 402-9400
Dirk D. Thomas
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
1999 K Street, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 370-8302
Joel L. Thollander
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701(512) 692-8735
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
Gemalto S.A.
July 9, 2013
NON-CONFIDENTIALCase: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
2/241
i
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for Gemalto S.A. certifies the following:
1. The full name of every party represented by me is:
Gemalto S.A.
2. The name of the real party in interest represented by me is:
Gemalto S.A.
3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
or more of the stock of the party represented by me is:
Gemalto N.A.
4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
the party represented by me in the trial court or are expected to appear in this
Court are:
McKool Smith P.C.: Robert Auchter, Samuel F. Baxter, Todd Bellaire,
Robert A. Cote, Holly E. Engelmann, Laurie L. Fitzgerald, Shahar Harel,
Pierre J. Hubert, Radu A. Lelutiu, Christopher J. Mierzejewski Kevin
Schubert, Geoffrey L. Smith, Joel L. Thollander, Dirk D. Thomas.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
3/241
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST................................................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................v
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES................................................................. viii
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................1
II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ....................................................................1
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................2
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................7
A. The Parties .............................................................................................7
B. The Patents-in-Suit................................................................................8
C. The Prosecution History........................................................................9
D. The Patents Do Not Require that All Memory
For Storing Converted Applications Be On-Chip
and Claim Embodiments that Store Converted
Applications in a Mix of On-Chip and Off-ChipMemory. ..............................................................................................11
E. The Patents Do Not Require that the Memory Used
by the Processor to Execute Converted
Applications Include the Non-Volatile (Permanent)
Memory Located Off-Chip..................................................................14
F. The Patents Disclose and Claim Embedded
Systems for Non-Smartcard Embodiments. ........................................16
G. The Processors Powering Devices that Embody the
Claimed Inventions Need Not Be Microcontrollers. ..........................18
H. Gemaltos Inventions Have Had a Dramatic
Impact on the World of Mobile Computing........................................18
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
4/241
iii
I. Years After the Inventors Managed to Deploy Java
Within the Resource-Constrained Environment of
an Embedded System, Googles Android Team
Found Itself Vexed by the Same Problem...........................................19
J. The Operation of the Embedded Systems in theAccused Android Smartphones...........................................................21
K. TheMarkman and Summary Judgment Orders ..................................25
V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................................................27
VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................31
VII. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................32
A. The District Court Erred in Granting Summary
Judgment of Noninfringement Based on Its
Incorrect Constructions of the Claim Terms
Programmable Device, Integrated Circuit
Card, and Microcontroller..............................................................32
1. The broader term programmable device is
not coextensive with the narrower term
microcontroller. .....................................................................32
2. The all program memory limitation should
not have been imported into the claims. ..................................37
B. Even if Its Constructions for the Relevant Claim
Terms Were Correct (And They Are Not), The
District Court Erred in Granting Summary
Judgment on Gemaltos Doctrine of Equivalents
Arguments. ..........................................................................................45
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED.............................................48
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
5/241
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................31
Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................3
Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v.Biolitec,
618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .........................................................................35
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986)............................................................................................31
Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC,
706 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................46, 47
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .........................................................................42
Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc.,
183 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .........................................................................32
Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Bev. Can Co.,
559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................30, 45
Cybor Corp v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..........................................................................31
Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................passim
Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89764 (June 28, 2012 E.D. Tex.) ..................................5
Golight, Inc. v. Wall-Mart Stores, Inc.,
355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .........................................................................42
Grober v. Mako Products, Inc.,
686 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................................................................41
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 5 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
6/241
v
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water FiltrationSys., Inc.,
381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .........................................................................35
In re Rambus Inc.,
694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................41
Intl Visual Corp. v. Crown Metal Mfg. Co.,
991 F.2d 768 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...........................................................................32
Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com,
582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .........................................................................36
Kress Corp. v. Alexander Servs.,
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12742 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 1998) ..................................42
Nazomi Commcns, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC,403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .........................................................................28
On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH,
386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .........................................................................39
Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................passim
Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................40, 45
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.,
593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................31
The Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .........................................................................36
STATUTES &RULES
28 U.S.C. 1295(a) ...................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. 1331........................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. 1338........................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. 2107(a) ...................................................................................................1
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 6 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
7/241
vi
FED.R.APP.P. 4(a) ....................................................................................................1
FED.R.CIV.P.56(a).................................................................................................31
STATEMENT CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL
Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 28(d)(1)(B) and 30(h)(1)(B), Gemalto S.A. states as
follows: The material that has been deleted on pages 4, 19, 20, and 21 of this brief
includes matter that was designated as Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only by
Defendants in the district court. The deleted portions reflect the substance of
certain communications among Google Inc. employees concerning the design of
the Android operating system and other information Defendants consider sensitive.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 7 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
8/241
vii
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant toFED.CIR.R. 47.5, Plaintiff-Appellant Gemalto S.A. (Gemalto)
states as follows:
(a) There have been no other previous appeals in this case; and
(b) There are no cases pending in this or any other court that will directly affect or
be directly affected by this Courts decision in the pending appeal.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 8 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
9/241
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had jurisdiction
over the actions giving rise to this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over this appeal
under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a). The notice of appeal from the final judgment entered
on April 16, 2013 was timely filed under FED. R. APP. P. 4(a) and 28 U.S.C.
2107(a) on May 3, 2013. JA1; JA180-82.
II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUESIssue 1: Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment
of noninfringement on the basis of three misconstrued termsmicrocontroller,
integrated circuit card, and programmable devicewhen, in construing each
of these claim terms to require all program memory on a single semiconductor
substrate, the court excluded a claimed embodiment; effected unsupported
disclaimers of claim scope; and subjected these terms of varying breadth to the
same overly restrictive limitation found nowhere in the intrinsic record.
Issue 2: Whether, assuming arguendo that the district court correctly
construed the claims to require all program memory on a single semiconductor
substrate, the court nevertheless erred in granting summary judgment of
noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents when Gemalto presented
unrebutted evidence establishing that, in the accused devices, at least 97 percent of
the program code to be executed is present in on-chip memory during execution.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 9 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
10/241
2
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASEIn 1996, four computer scientists working in Texas for Gemaltos
predecessor, Schlumberger, solved a problem then thought to be unsolvable:
running applications developed using the Java programming languagea language
designed for desktop computerswithin the resource-constrained computing
environment of a smartcard, smartphone, or other system whose functions are
controlled by an embedded processor. See JA92(7:43)-JA98(19:36).1
The inventors
thereby enabled the makers of embedded systems generally, including makers of
programmable devices such as smartcards and smartphones, to leverage the
community of tens of thousands of Java application developers. JA660. Because
Java is the most popular programming language in the mobile world, JA659,
Gemaltos Java conversion technology has playedand continues to playan
essential role in the rapid growth of the smartcard and smartphone industries.
JA349; JA723.
As described and claimed in the patents-in-suitU.S. Patent Nos. 6,308,317
(the 317 Patent); 7,117,485 (the 485 Patent); and 7,818,727 (the 727
Patent)Gemaltos inventions claim the conversion of Java applications from a
compiled form comprising hundreds of class files to a converted form comprising a
single class file suitable for execution by a processor operating within the resource-
1
The three patents-in-suit share a common specification. For the sake of
simplicity, citations herein are to the specification of the 317 Patent.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 10 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
11/241
3
constrained computing environment of the device in which it is embedded. JA67
(Fig. 2); JA68 (Fig. 3); JA92(7:43)-JA98(19:36).
While the patents disclosure draws upon the inventors extensive work with
smartcards, Gemaltos inventions are not limited to that particular embodiment of
an embedded system. Recognizing the importance and broad applicability of their
new technology, the inventors obtained patent protection covering the use of their
Java conversion techniques in any embedded systemincluding, in particular,
smartcards and mobile phones having embedded processors (today known as
smartphones). JA86 (Fig. 22) (showing an embedded processor for a mobile
phone); JA92(7:60-65) (In other embodiments, the microcontroller, memory and
communicator are mounted within telecommunication equipment). The claims
of the patents-in-suit are thus directed to various embedded system embodiments,
including programmable devices generally and integrated circuit cards to be
embedded in other devices to control their operation. In addition, there are also
claims directed to a microcontroller, which as described in the patent
specification is one embodiment of an embedded processor that may be used in the
claimed inventions, whether as part of an integrated circuit card or as a stand-alone
component embedded to control a programmable device.
Gemalto filed this suit in October 2010, alleging that Defendants
manufacture, sale, importation, and promotion of Android smartphones infringe
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 11 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
12/241
4
the patents-in-suit. JA247-58. Critically, Defendants do not dispute here that their
accused smartphones make use of the patents Java conversion technology to solve
problems resulting from the resource-constraints inherent to these mobile devices.
JA261 (All your Java code [is] compiled by the Java compiler and .class files
are output. The dx tool converts the .class files to Dalvik byte code (i.e., a single
executable file)); JA262-63
Instead,
Defendants seek to avoid accounting for their use of this technology on the ground
that the processor chips embedded in their resource-constrained devices can access
larger amounts of memory than was typicalaccording to the specificationin
1996. JA272-73. In particular, Defendants argue that (1) the processor chips
embedded in their accused Android devices make use of external, off-processor
chip memory (in addition to the on-processor chip memory) to store the converted
application instructions when power to the device is turned off; and (2)
embodiments that rely on such external memory fall outside the scope of the
claims.Id. Nothing in the patents or their prosecution history, however, disclaims
such use of any off-chip memoryin fact the patents expressly cover
embodiments in which a portion of the memory is located in the processor, and
the rest is located external to it. JA90 (4:13-14); JA98 (claim 4).
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 12 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
13/241
5
The magistrate judge nevertheless construed the claims to exclude such
embodiments. In particular, the magistrate construed: (1) microcontroller as a
single semiconductor substrate [i.e., a single chip] integrating electronic circuit
components that includes a central processing unit and all program memory
making it suitable for use an embedded system; (2) integrated circuit card as a
card containing a single semiconductor substrate having a central processing unit
and all program memory; and (3) programmable device as having the same
meaning and scope as the term microcontroller. JA27; JA31; JA33 (emphasis
added); Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., No. 6:10-CV-561, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
89764 (June 28, 2012 E.D. Tex.). Gemalto filed timely objections to these
constructions, showing that there was no basis to narrow the claims with the
location-restricting all program memory limitationlanguage that was found
nowhere in the intrinsic record. JA298-302. But the district court summarily
overruled those objections and adopted the magistrates constructions in August
2012. JA16.
Defendants then moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. JA266.
Again, Defendants did not dispute that their accused Android smartphones practice
the Java conversion techniques claimed in the patents-in-suit; they simply argued
that these devices do not meet the imported all program memory limitation for
microcontroller, integrated circuit card, and programmable device because a
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 13 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
14/241
6
portion of the memory used in the Android smartphones to store program
instructions when not being executed by the processor chip is external to the
processor. JA272-73. The magistrate agreed with Defendants, and recommended
the entry of summary judgment on the basis of this location-restricting all
program memory limitation found in the claims as construed. JA7-12. The ruling
extended to cover Gemaltos arguments under the doctrine of equivalents, which
rest on the uncontested fact that, when in use, the program instructions executed by
an Android smartphone are present in the memory of the phones embedded
processor chip 97 percent of the timesuch that only three percent of the time is
there a need for the on-chip memory controller to retrieve an instruction from off-
chip memory for execution by the processor. JA12-14.
Gemalto again filed timely objections to the magistrates summary
recommendation, and the district court again overruled those objections in
summary fashion. JA2-3. Final judgment was entered on April 16, 2013, and this
appeal followed. JA1; JA180-82.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 14 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
15/241
7
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTSA. The Parties.Plaintiff Gemalto is the worlds leading provider of digital security
solutions, which are incorporated in myriad types of devices, smartcards,
smartphones, passports, government-issued ID cards, and other embedded systems.
JA247-48. More than one billion people worldwide use Gemaltos products and
services for telecommunications, financial services, e-government, identity and
access management, multimedia content, digital rights management, IT security,
mass transit and many other embedded system applications.Id. Gemalto has a long
tradition of innovation and invests heavily in research and development. JA247.
Gemalto holds all rights, title, and interest to the patents-in-suit. JA251-52.
Defendants Google, Inc. (Google); HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc.,
and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, HTC); Motorola Mobility, LLC (Motorola);
and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Telecommunications America,
LLC (collectively, Samsung) are some of the worlds largest technology
companies. Defendant Google is the developer of the accused Android operating
system and the Android software development kit that allows Google and the other
Defendants to convert Java applications for use in Android smartphones. JA248.
Google also develops, sells, and markets its own brand of Android smartphones.
JA249. The remaining Defendants develop, sell, and market Android smartphones
using the Android operating system, and the Java applications included with their
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 15 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
16/241
8
smartphones have been converted using the Android software development kit.
JA249-51.
B. The Patents-in-Suit.The patented technology at issue in this case was developed in the mid-
1990s by Gemaltos corporate predecessor, Schlumberger, at its Austin research
and development facility. JA349-53. The inventions enable the use of high-level
programming languages, such as the ubiquitous Java programming language, in
embedded systems. JA92(7:43)-JA98(19:36).
The six asserted embedded system claimsclaims 1, 4, and 5 of the 317
Patent (integrated circuit card); claims 38 and 39 of the 485 Patent (integrated
circuit card); and claim 3 of the 727 Patent (programmable device)require a
converted application created using a two-step process for transforming
applications written in a high-level programming language into a form that can be
executed by the embedded processor of the claim using a virtual machine
(referred to in the claim as an interpreter). In the first step, applications are
compiled into a compiled form comprising hundreds of class files suitable for use
in desktop computers. JA17-18. Applications in class format are then fed into a
class file converter, which, using various optimization and conversion techniques
recited in the claims and described in the specification, consolidates and
compresses the files to produce a single class file of converted byte codes suitable
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 16 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
17/241
9
for use in embedded systems. This converted form is then loaded to or stored in the
memory of the embedded processor chip for execution by the processor, as
described and claimed in Gemaltos patents. JA17-18. The virtual machine, which
is also loaded to on-chip memory, is then used by the embedded processor to
interpret the converted byte codes into native program instructions for execution by
the embedded processor.
In converting hundreds of class files into a single class file, the technology
taught by the patents-in-suit drastically minimizes computing resources consumed
by both the Java applications and the virtual machine (the interpreter) that allows
the processor to interpret them for execution, see JA92(7:43)-JA98(19:36), making
these applications suitable for use in the resource-constrained computing
environments of embedded systems, such as the Android smartphones. In this way,
Gemaltos patented Java conversion technology enables embedded, resource-
constrained computing platforms to enjoy programming capabilities previously
only available to desktop computers. JA89(1:55-61).
C. The Prosecution History.The novelty of Gemaltos inventions lies in the conversion techniques taught
in the specification and recited in the claimsnot the type of embedded processor
used in practicing those conversion techniques, let alone whether that processor
has all of its memory for storing program instructions on-chip. Indeed, during the
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 17 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
18/241
10
prosecution of the patents-in-suit, the applicants explained that the claimed
conversion techniques enabled the deployment of Java in embedded systems
generally, not just in smartcards or smartphones:
Embedded systems using microcontrollers can also gain
many of the[] advantages [detailed in the specification]
for downloading new applications, high level program
development, and rapid prototyping by making use of
this invention.
JA90(4:4-8); JA92 (7:60-65) (In other embodiments, the microcontroller, memory
and communicator are mounted within telecommunication equipment); JA86
(Fig. 22) (showing an embedded processor for a mobile phone).
The applicants also emphasized that the embedded processor maybut
need notbe a microcontroller, thereby making clear that the embedded systems
practicing the inventions can be powered by any type of embedded processor.
JA90(4:12-13). Indeed, the summary of the invention and patent claims themselves
refer to integrated circuit card[s] and programmable device[s] as comprising,
among other things, generic processor[s] (not just microcontroller[s]). JA98-
102, 105-08 (317 Patent, claims 1, 4-11, 13-15, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 55, 64, 84-86,
93, and 94); JA178-79 (727 Patent, claims 1-7, 10, 12, 14, and 16-18).
In discussing the benefits afforded by their inventions, the applicants also
explained what they believed to be the differences between microprocessors for
desktop computers and microcontrollers in existence in the mid-1990s.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 18 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
19/241
11
JA89(1:62-2:10). In particular, the applicants noted that a typical microprocessor
had access to relatively large external memory, such that it could run
unconverted Java code on a desktop computer, while a typical microcontroller
that is, a type of processor chip used to control an embedded system such as a
smartcard or mobile phone (today known as a smartphone)usually had access to
a much smaller memory, thereby benefitting from the claimed optimization and
conversion techniques.Id.
The provisional application to which the patents-in-suit claim priority further
defined a microprocessor as a central processing unit without any memory.
JA370 (emphasis added). The applicants defined a microcontroller, in contrast,
as comprising a central processing unit, memory and other functional elements on
a single chip. Id. (emphasis added). While the applicants definition of
microcontroller thus makes clear that the processor chip contains memory, the
definition makes no reference to program memory or all program memory, nor
does it provide that all memory for storing program instructions must reside on the
microcontroller chip.
D. The Patents Do Not Require that All Memory For StoringConverted Applications Be On-Chip and Claim Embodimentsthat Store Converted Applications in a Mix of On-Chip and Off-
Chip Memory.
Nothing in the intrinsic record evidences an intention by the applicants to
limit the claims such that all memory for storing an applications program
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 19 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
20/241
12
instructions be on the processor chip (on-chip memory). In addition, nothing in the
intrinsic record disclaims embodiments that use a mix of on-chip and off-chip
memory, with memory located external to the processor chip (i.e., off-chip
memory) to store such instructions. To the contrary, the claims and specification
show that the applicants expressly intended to cover such mixed embodiments.
The specification expressly provides that a portion of the memory utilized by
devices embodying the claimed inventions may be located external to the processor
chip. JA90(4:13-14) ([A]t least a portion of the memory may be located in the
processor). And this disclosure in the specification carries into the claims. In
particular, claim 1 of the 317 Patent provides:
* * *
JA98 (emphasis added). Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites in turn:
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 20 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
21/241
13
Id. (emphasis added). It is thus clear that the patent applicants intended to cover
embodiments of their inventions utilizing memory located both in the processor
chip and external to the processorthat is, a mix of on-chip and off-chip
memoryto store applications derived through the conversion techniques taught
by the patents.
The applicants intent to claim embodiments making use of external memory
for application instructions reflects a commercial realitythroughout the 1990s
(and into the present day) microcontrollers were and are regularly designed to use a
mix of on-chip and off-chip (external) memory to store program instructions. For
instance:
A patent filed in 1996 by a well-known chip manufacturer notes that [a]microcontroller is typically coupled to one or more external memory deviceswhich store software programs . [T]he microcontroller fetches the
instructions and data from the external memory . JA425(1:39-44)
(emphasis added).
A patent filed in 1995 by a Motorola affiliate provides that: themicrocontroller must be able to fetch part of the program off-chip.
JA446(1:18-25, 2:40-43) (emphasis added).
A 1987 datasheet published by a Motorola affiliate notes that Motorolamicrocontrollers are designed to work with [a]pplications requiringexternal memory. JA450 (emphasis added).
A 1996 datasheet published by a Motorola affiliate notes that amicrocontroller can access external peripheral and memory devices.
JA475 (emphasis added).
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 21 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
22/241
14
A 1997 datasheet published by a Motorola affiliate notes thatmicrocontrollers are designed to use external EEPROMs or RAMs. JA539
(emphasis added).
E. The Patents Do Not Require that the Memory Used by theProcessor to Execute Converted Applications Include the Non-
Volatile (Permanent) Memory Located Off-Chip.
The applicants also did not disclaim any particular type of memory to be
used by the processor for execution of the converted applicationswhether
permanent or non-volatile memory, e.g., ROM or EEPROM, or volatile-memory,
e.g., RAM. Indeed, the specification discusses both volatile and non-volatile (i.e.,
permanent) memory:
There are generally three different types of memory used:
random access memory (RAM), read only memory
(ROM), and electrically erasable programmable only
memory (EEPROM). . . . Each kind of memory is
suitable for different purposes. Although ROM is the
least expensive, it is suitable only for data that is
unchanging, such as operating system code. EEPROM isuseful for storing data that must be retained when power
is removed, but is extremely slow to write. RAM can be
written and read at high speed, but is expensive and data
in RAM is lost when power is removed.
JA89(2:11-34).
Nothing in the asserted claims requires that processors powering
embodiments of the invention include on-chip the permanent (i.e., non-volatile)
memory used to store program instructions when power to the device is turned off.
There is thus no disclaimer of devices that, like the Android smartphones, load
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 22 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
23/241
15
program instructions from the off-chip permanent memory to the on-chip memory
(volatile memory, called cache memory) for execution by the processor. Indeed,
the patents describe and generically claim memory for storing the converted
applications on-chip, see, e.g., JA98 (claim 1), but there is nothing to indicate that
the type of storing contemplated has to include any permanent memory storage
too. Moreover, the language in nearly every independent claim recites, without
limitation, that the purpose of the memory is to stor[e] the converted
applications for executionby the claimed embedded processor, see, e.g., JA98
(claim 1) (emphasis added)a completely different purpose than that of non-
volatile (permanent) memory, which is used to store programs when power to a
device is turned off.
Thus, there is no disclaimer to justify the district courts further narrowing of
the all program memory limitation in the summary judgment ruling, wherein the
district court held that the on-chip memory the Android smartphones use for
execution is not all program memory. JA9-10 (on-chip memory space only
temporarily holding program instructions loaded from off-chip main memory does
not constitute all program memory necessary for execution. Also necessary for
execution is [off-chip] memory space permanently holding all program
instructions.). The district courts ruling ignores both the intrinsic record,
including the patent specification and claims, and the extrinsic record, which
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 23 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
24/241
16
shows that microcontrollers (a widely-used form of embedded processor at the
time of the invention) regularly retrieve program instructions from external, off-
chip memory.
F. The Patents Disclose and Claim Embedded Systems for Non-Smartcard Embodiments.
The examples used in the specification to illustrate the teachings of the
patents understandably draw upon the inventors extensive work with the devices
that were the focus of their immediate effortsthat is, smartcards. But the claims
allowed by the PTO, including all of the claims asserted by Gemalto in this action,
are not limited to the smartcard environment. Instead, as noted, these claims are
more broadly directed to microcontrollers; integrated circuit card[s] (claims 1,
4 and 6 of the 317 Patent and claims 38 and 39 of the 485 Patent); and
programmable device[s] (claim 3 of the 727 Patent) that take advantage of
Gemaltos conversion technology.
The specification likewise includes several figures that show embodiments
of the claimed inventions, including:
Figure 21, which shows a microcontroller 210 embedded in a smartcard,JA86; JA92(7:28-29):
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 24 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
25/241
17
Figure 22, which shows an embedded microcontroller 210 providing theclaimed Java conversion technology to a mobile telephone (today called a
smartphone), JA86; JA92(7:30-32):
Figure 25, which shows a circuit card with an embedded microcontroller210 to control another device, JA88; JA92(7:37-38):
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 25 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
26/241
18
G. The Processors Powering Devices that Embody the ClaimedInventions Need Not Be Microcontrollers.
Consistent with the applicants desire not to limit the scope of their
inventions to particular embedded systems, the patents make clear that the claimed
processor may be a microcontroller, but may also be something more generic.
JA90(4:12-13) (The processor may be a microcontroller); JA98 (claim 3) (3.
The integrated circuit card of claim 1 wherein the processor comprises a
microcontroller.). Indeed, numerous claims of the patents-in-suit, including the
asserted claims, do not recite microcontroller[s], but rather other form factors
integrated circuit card[s] and programmable device[s]that comprise, among
other things, generic embedded processor[s]. JA98-102, JA105-08 (317 Patent,
claims 1, 4-11, 13-15, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 55, 64, 84-86, 93, and 94); JA178-79
(727 Patent, claims 1-7, 10, 12, 14, and 16-18).
H. Gemaltos Inventions Have Had a Dramatic Impact on the Worldof Mobile Computing.
Gemaltos inventions were immediately met with extraordinary industry
acclaim. For good reasonas the former CEO of the company that created Java
(Sun Microsystems) recognized, [f]itting Java technology inside smart cards was
like playing golf in a telephone booth. JA643. In addition to receiving numerous
accolades, Gemaltos inventions also spawned the adoption of a new specification
for Java-based smartcards, which has since been implemented in billions of
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 26 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
27/241
19
devices sold around the world. JA349. Thanks to the patents-in-suit, smartcards
have become the most widely sold general purpose computer in the world. Id.
Virtually all of Gemaltos competitors have taken a license to the patents-in-suit.
JA648.
I. Years After the Inventors Managed to Deploy Java Within theResource-Constrained Environment of an Embedded System,
Googles Android Team Found Itself Vexed by the Same Problem.
In the mid 2000s, Defendant Google
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 27 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
28/241
20
JA261 (All your Java
code [is] compiled by the Java compiler and .class files are output. The dex tool
converts the .class files to Dalvik byte code.).
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 28 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
29/241
21
Javaand Gemaltos patented conversion technology that allows Android
smartphones to run Java applicationsremains critical to Androids success.
Indeed, Google management continues to believe that the technical alternatives to
Java all suck. JA723.
J. The Operation of the Embedded Systems in the Accused AndroidSmartphones.
In moving for summary judgment, Defendants did not dispute that the
accused Android smartphones utilize Gemaltos patented Java conversion
technology. JA261 (All your Java code [is] compiled by the Java compiler and
.class files are output. The dex tool converts the .class files to Dalvik byte code.).
Each of the accused smartphones is powered by a circuit card, i.e., a motherboard,
with an embedded processor chip that controls the phone and runs Java
applications. The motherboard of a representative accused smartphone (the
Motorola Droid Pro) is shown below:
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 29 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
30/241
22
Embedded processor chips like those utilized in the accused Android smartphones
are the 21st century equivalent of microcontrollers. JA725.
Each of the processor chips in the accused Android smartphones employs a
modified Harvard architecture, in which a CPU in the processor chip employs
separate and exclusive memory space for application program instructions and
data. JA713. The processor chips of the accused Android smartphones maintain
in them a separate and distinct instruction cache and data cache for the CPU of
the processor to use at the lowest cache level (called L1 cache). Id. The L1
instruction cache is the only memory from which the CPU of the processor
executes program instructions.Id.
Cache memory is high-speed RAM that is contained on the same
semiconductor substrate as the CPU.Id. This is the case with the processor chip in
each of the accused Android smartphones. Id. Further, the cache memory in each
MotorolaDroidProProcessorchip(SystemonaChip(SoC))
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 30 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
31/241
23
of these processor chips contains both a level 1 (L1) instruction cache and a level 1
(L1) data cache. Id. The CPU of the processor exclusively fetches and executes
instructions from the L1 instruction cache. JA713-14. The cache memory also
includes a unified level 2 (L2) data cache that stores both program instructions,
converted byte codes, and other data needed by the processor. JA713. The L2 data
cache is also located on the same semiconductor substrate as the CPU in the
processor.Id.
When the CPU in the accused Android smartphones seeks to fetch a
program instruction for execution, it does so by sending the fetch request to the L1
instruction cache. JA713-14. If the particular program instruction resides in the L1
instruction cache, the L1 instruction cache will immediately provide the program
instruction to the CPU of the processor. Id. If the particular program instruction
does not reside in the L1 instruction cache of the processor at that point, the cache
controller will determine if the program instruction resides in the L1 data cache or
the L2 data cache.Id. If the program instruction resides in the L1 data cache or the
L2 data cache, a block of instructions including the requested instruction will be
moved from the L1 data cache or the L2 data cache to the L1 instruction cache so
that it can be provided to the processors CPU.Id. From the L1 instruction cache,
the requested instruction will then be provided to the CPU for execution.Id.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 31 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
32/241
24
If the program instruction does not reside in the L1 or L2 data cache, the
cache controller will retrieve a block of instructions from the off-chip main system
memory (off-chip RAM or separate flash memory) also embedded in the circuit
board of the Android smartphones. JA714. The cache controller will place a copy
in both the L2 data cache and the L1 instruction cache. Id. The requested
instruction is then provided from the L1 instruction cache to the CPU for
execution.Id. Significantly, when the CPU attempts to fetch a program instruction
from the L1 instruction cache, that program instruction resides in the L1 instruction
cache or the L2 cache at least 97% of the time. JA718; JA731-32.
This is undisputed and was confirmed through testing of the accused
Android smartphones, as explained in a detailed declaration submitted with
Gemaltos opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment. JA726-33.
And the result is not surprising: for efficiency reasons the cache controllers are
designed to minimize off-chip memory fetch and access during execution. JA718.
Thus, again, the accused Android smartphones are designed such that any
particular program instruction called or requested by the CPU of the processor will
already reside in the on-chip cache memory at least 97% of the time. Id.; JA731-
32.
The accused Android smartphones thus use embedded systems and run
converted Java applications. JA719. And they further operate in a resource-
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 32 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
33/241
25
constrained environmentcompared to traditional desktop platforms, the accused
smartphones have limited computing power, smaller amounts of memory, smaller
amounts of semi-permanent storage, constraints in power consumption, and less to
offer in terms of operator interfaces. Id. As a result, these Android smartphones
(and the integrated circuit cards embedded therein) would not offer the application
flexibility of traditional computing platforms without Gemaltos conversion
technology.Id. Many standard desktop computing applications, for example, such
as word processing, spreadsheets, graphics presentation, publishing, and
photo/video manipulation, will not run or cannot be run effectively on the Android
smartphones without the patented Java conversion technology.Id.
K. The Markman and Summary Judgment OrdersNotwithstanding the intrinsic evidence demonstrating an intent to claim
embodiments that use a mix of on- and off-chip memory, the district court
construed the terms microcontroller, integrated circuit card, and
programmable device so as to exclude embodiments making any use of off-chip
program memory. That is, the court construed the terms: (1) microcontroller as
a single semi-conductor substrate integrating electronic circuit components that
includes a central processing unit andall program memory making it suitable for
use as an embedded system; (2) integrated circuit card as a card containing a
single semiconductor substrate having a central processing unit and all program
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 33 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
34/241
26
memory; and (3) programmable device as having the same meaning and scope
of microcontroller. JA27; JA31; JA33.
It is undisputed that the terms program memory and all program
memory, found in each of these constructions, do not appear anywhere in the
patents or the prosecution history. Nor were these terms proposed by any of the
parties in this case. JA22; JA28; JA31. They were instead adopted by the
magistrate judge during the initial claim construction determination. JA27; JA31;
JA33. Perhaps recognizing the powerful intrinsic evidence regarding embodiments
with a mix of on- and off-chip memory, the magistrate explained in the Markman
order that the construction does not prevent a microcontroller from accessing
any external memory . Under the Courts construction, a microcontroller may
access off chip memory to store and retrieve data stored in a static RAM. JA26.
The courts rulings on summary judgment, however, made clear that these
constructions exclude embodiments making any use of off-chip memory to store
any portion of the application instructions converted with the patented techniques.
JA8-10.
In the February 25, 2013 Report and Recommendation, adopted by the
district court on April 14, 2013, the magistrate judge held that by virtue of the fact
that Defendants devices store program instructions off-chip and access those off-
chip instructions to run the accused applications, they [do] not literally infringe.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 34 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
35/241
27
JA12. The magistrate rejected Gemaltos argument that the cache memory of the
accused Android smartphones met the limitation in question, holding that memory
space only temporarily holding program instructions does not constitute all
program memory necessary for execution. JA 9-10.
The magistrate also rejected Gemaltos doctrine of equivalents (DOE)
arguments. In support of those arguments, Gemalto submitted a declaration from
its patent-infringement expert opining thatbased on the tests that had been
performedthe accused Android smartphones satisfied the all program memory
limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. That is, Gemaltos expert opined that
having the necessary program instructions in on-chip memory 97% of the time was
insubstantially different from having those program instructions in on-chip
memory 100% of the time. JA12-14. The magistrate judge rejected Gemaltos
DOE arguments reasoning that the accused devices on-chip memory cannot meet
the all program memory limitation by equivalence, reasoning that because the
all program memory limitation was structural in nature it could not be met
either literally orby equivalenceby on-chip volatile memory. JA12-13.
V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTIn granting summary judgment of noninfringement, the district court
committed three legal errors.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 35 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
36/241
28
First, the court erred in equating the broad term programmable device
with microcontroller, a facially narrower term that is one of the preferred
embodiments disclosed in the specification. This Courts precedent holds that,
absent clear and unmistakable evidence to the contrary, it is inappropriate to
confine the scope of a patent claim to an embodiment discussed in the
specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(noting that although the specification often describes very specific embodiments
of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
embodiments) (citing Nazomi Commcns, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims may embrace different subject matter than is
illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification)). The error in the
district courts construction of programmable device as microcontroller is
particularly glaring given that (1) the programmable device claims do not recite
a microcontroller limitation; instead they recite a generic embedded processor,
a term that, according to the specification maybut need notbe a
microcontroller; and (2) during the prosecution history, the PTO examiner
understood the programmable device claims to be a broader recitation than
the integrated circuit card and microcontroller claims of the 317 Patent.
Second, the district court erred in importing the location-restricting all
program memory limitation into its constructions for the claim terms integrated
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 36 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
37/241
29
circuit card and microcontroller. The court effectively determined that the
applicants disclaimed any embodiment of their inventions making use of memory
external to the processor to store the converted application program instructions.
That determination, however, is at odds with the entirety of the evidentiary record.
Indeed, embodiments that utilize off-chip memory to store applications are
specifically claimed in claim 4 of the 317 Patent, which Gemalto is asserting in
this lawsuit. Furthermore, the district courts claim construction order
acknowledged that embodiments of the invention may in fact utilize external
memory, and there is nothing in the patents disclosure or the prosecution history
that evidences an intent by the patent applicants to disclaim embedded systems that
utilize off-chip memory to store applications (as opposed to data). Indeed, to the
contrary, the claims themselves expressly cover embodiments whose embedded
processors rely on external memory to store applications. Moreover, the
uncontroverted evidence shows that throughout the 1990s (and even to the present
day) microcontrollers were and are regularly designed to use external memory to
store application program instructions for this purpose.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 37 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
38/241
30
Third, even if the district courts constructions for the terms
microcontroller, integrated circuit card, and programmable device were
correctthough they are notthe court nevertheless erred in granting summary
judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE).
Gemaltos summary judgment evidence demonstrated that at least 97% of the time
the CPU calls for program instructions to be executed, those instructions are
already present in the on-chip cache memory of the accused smartphones
processor chips. Gemaltos expert further opined that, in this context, 97% of the
time represented an insubstantial difference from 100% of the time. This testimony
created an issue of fact for the jury to resolve. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v.
Rexam Bev. Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Contrary to the
magistrates conclusion, Gemaltos DOE arguments do not contravene the all-
elements rule and do not implicate claim vitiation. The DOE, by its very nature,
assumes that some element is missing from the literal claim language. Deere &
Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no dispute
that the accused Android smartphones contain on-chip memory, and that the
program instructions to be executed for an application will be located in the on-
chip cache 97%orvirtually allof the time. A jury should have been allowed to
consider and resolve the DOE issue, and the district courts decision to short-
circuit this factual inquiry at summary judgment should be overturned as just the
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 38 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
39/241
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
40/241
32
VII. ARGUMENTA. The District Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment of
Noninfringement Based on Its Incorrect Constructions of the
Claim Terms Programmable Device, Integrated Circuit
Card, and Microcontroller.
The district court held that each of these terms of varying breadth was
subject to the same narrowing limitation of claim scopefound nowhere in the
claims or the specificationrequiring that any programmable device, integrated
circuit card, or microcontroller practicing Gemaltos Java conversion
techniques include all program memory on a single semiconductor substrate.
JA27; JA31; JA33. The court thus effectively concluded that Gemaltos patents
disclaim any embedded-system embodiment that utilizes off-chip memory to store
program instructions. JA12. That conclusion is in error, and both the claim
constructions and summary judgments flowing from it must be reversed. See
Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(Summary judgment should ordinarily be vacated or reversed if it is based on a
claim construction that this court determines to be erroneous.); Intl Visual Corp.
v. Crown Metal Mfg. Co., 991 F.2d 768, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
1. The broader term programmable device is notcoextensive with the narrower term microcontroller.
In its construction for the term programmable device, the district court
expressly found that a programmable device is a microcontroller, see JA33,
thereby equating the programmable device claims of the 727 Patent with one of
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 40 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
41/241
33
the preferred embodiments disclosed in the specification. For several reasons, this
construction was clear error.
First, the district courts construction runs afoul of this Courts admonition
that, absent a clear expression of intent to the contrary, it is inappropriate to
confine claims to specific embodiments discussed in the specification. Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1323 (noting that although the specification often describes very
specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against
confining the claims to those embodiments) (citing Nazomi Commcns, 403 F.3d
at 1369 (claims may embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the
specific embodiments in the specification)). Here, there is nothing in the
specification or the prosecution history that manifests an intent by the applicants to
equate the term programmable device with the term microcontroller.
Second, while the district court noted that [b]ecause programmable device
is not a term of art and has no plain and ordinary meaning, it is particularly
important to construe the term in the context of the intrinsic record, JA32, it does
not follow that programmable device should be construed as microcontroller.
For one thing, as the district court acknowledged, the specification does not
[even] use the term programmable device. Id. For another, the programmable
device claims of the 727 Patent do not in fact recite a microcontroller; they
recite a generic embedded processor, and the specification itself makes clear that
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 41 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
42/241
34
the processor element recited in the programmable device claims neednotbe a
microcontroller. JA90(4:12-13) ([T]he processor may be a microcontroller.).
The error in the district courts construction is thus particularly strikingat
bottom, the district court equated programmable device with something even
narrower than the processor limitation recited in the programmable device
claims, completely ignoring the specifications admonition that the processor
need not be a microcontroller.
Third, the prosecution history underscores the common sense conclusion
that the programmable device claims of the 727 Patent were intended to be
broader than the microcontroller and integrated circuit claims of the 317
Patent. In particular, during the prosecution of the programmable device claims,
the Examiner initially rejected those claims on the ground of non-statutory double
patenting. JA737, JA751. In so doing, the Examiner observed that the present
claims are merely considered a broader recitation of claims 1-86 of the 317
Patent, JA751, which includes scores of microcontroller and integrated circuit
card claims. While the patent applicants ultimately overcame the double-patenting
rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer, the intrinsic evidence leaves no doubt that
the programmable device claims were understood by both the patent applicants
and the PTO to have a broader scope than the microcontroller claims of the 317
Patent.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 42 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
43/241
35
Fourth, by turning to a preferred embodiment to construe a claim term that
is facially broader than all of the embodiments discussed in the specification, the
district court overlooked this Courts directive that the words of the claims
themselves define the scope of the patented invention. Phillips, 415 F. 3d at
1313 (emphasis added) (quotingInnova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration
Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, the district court had to go
no further than the claims themselves to find a proper construction. That is
because, when considered in the context in which it is used in the asserted claims,
programmable devicefound in a preambleis nothing but a descriptive name
for the invention that is fully set forth in the bodies of the claims. Am. Med. Sys.,
Inc. v.Biolitec, 618 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Take, for instance, claim 3
of the 727 Patent, which reads:
A programmable device comprising:
a memory, and ;
a processor;
the memory comprising:
an interpreter; and
at least one application loaded in the memory
JA178. In context, it is clear that programmable device is nothing but a
convenient label for the invention as a whole. Am. Med. Sys., 618 F.3d at 1359
(finding such a term does not impose a claim limitation). A person of ordinary skill
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 43 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
44/241
36
in the art would understand that any device that meets the limitations set forth in
the body of the claim falls within the scope of the 727 Patent.
Fifth, it makes no sense that the patent applicants would go through the
trouble of prosecuting two separate patents that claim, in strikingly different
language, subject matter that is virtually identical. Nor does it make sense that the
patent applicantswho are employees of a sophisticated multinational corporation
that holds thousands of patentswould choose to limit the scope of their
revolutionary inventions to one preferred embodiment (a microcontroller) when the
patents teach that the optimization techniques are useful for any embedded
processor or embedded device embodying it. See JA90(4:12-13) ([T]he processor
may be a microcontroller.). Indeed, as this Court noted in Phillips, persons of
ordinary skill in the art rarely would confine their definitions of terms to the exact
representations depicted in the embodiments. 415 F.3d at 1323; see also The
Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a
patentee typically claims broadly enough to cover less preferred embodiments as
well as more preferred embodiments); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d
1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the patentee is entitled to the full scope of his
claims, and [the Court should] not limit him to [the] preferred embodiment or
import a limitation from the specification into the claims.) (citations omitted).
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 44 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
45/241
37
In sum, Gemalto respectfully submits that, if it is to be construed at all, the
term programmable device should be held to mean a device that can execute a
computer program.
2. The all program memory limitation should not have beenimported into the claims.
The district court construed the claim terms microcontroller and
programmable device as a single semiconductor substrate integrating electronic
circuit components that includes a central processing unit and all program memory
making it suitable for use as an embedded system. JA27.3
The court further
construed integrated circuit card as a card containing a single semiconductor
substrate having a central processing unit and all program memory. JA31. As
clarified by the magistrate judge in the context of the courts ruling on summary
judgment, the all program memory limitation precludes embodiments that use
off-chip memory to store any portion of the application instruction code converted
with the patented techniques, and instead requires application instruction code to
be stored in permanent on-chip memory. JA8-10.
3Prior to the district courts resolution of the summary judgment motions, Gemalto
dropped the remaining asserted claim reciting a microcontroller. But because the
district courts constructions of integrated circuit card and programmable
device turn on and adopt the critical analysis and language of the courts
microcontroller construction, JA31; JA33, that analysis and language must be
addressed in this appeal.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 45 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
46/241
38
This claim construction issue thus boils down to a straightforward
questiondid the patentees disclaim devices that use off-chip memory to store any
portion of the application instruction code? Gemalto respectfully submits that there
is nothing in the evidentiary record that indicates a desire by the applicants to
disclaim such embodiments. In fact, the opposite is true.
First, the claims themselves confirm the absence of a disclaimer. Indeed,
embodiments that rely on off-chip memory to store program instructions are
specifically claimed. In particular, claim 4 of the 317 Patent, which Defendants
acknowledge contemplates the use of external memory, see JA762-63, depends
from claim 1 and recites that only a portion of the memory of claim 1 need
reside in the processor chip. JA98. In turn, claim 1, which provides the
antecedent basis for claim 4, recites a memory storing an application derived
[from the patented conversion technology].Id. (emphasis added). In other words,
the patents expressly contemplate the use of memory external to the processor chip
for purposes of storing application[s]and indeed, claim devices that utilize
such external storage memory. This recitation of the claimed invention, which
expressly defines the on-chip memory as holding less than all of the program
instructions, cannot be reconciled with the district courts conclusion that
Gemaltos patents do not cover devices that utilize memory located external to the
processor chips to store program instructions. At bottom, the district courts
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 46 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
47/241
39
constructions for microcontroller and integrated circuit card fail to account for
an embodiment expressly claimed in the patents disclosure. As such, these
constructions cannot stand under this Courts precedent.Accent Packaging, Inc. v.
Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (We have held that a
claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
claim is rarely, if ever, correct.) (quoting On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk
Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Second, the specification provides that implementations of the inventions
include devices whose memory may be stored off chip. JA90(4:13-14 ([a]t least
a portionof the memory may be located external to the processor)). The district
court itself recognized this, when it acknowledged that its construction[s] do[] not
prevent a microcontroller from accessing any external memory. JA26
(emphasis added). But while the district court held that embodiments of the
claimed inventions may utilize external memory for some purposes (such as
storing data), but not others (such as storing applications), there is nothing in the
specification that draws a distinction between what can and what cannot be stored
in external memory. Similarly, while the district court sought to ground the all
program memory limitation in the distinction drawn in the specification between
typical microprocessors, which usually have a relatively large external
memory, and typical microcontrollers, which usually have a much smaller
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 47 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
48/241
40
memory, JA25, the distinction in question concerns solely the size of the
microcontrollers memory, not its location. Indeed, it is no more correct to say that,
because it has less memory than a microprocessor, all of the microcontrollers
memory must reside on the same semiconductor substrate or on chip than to say
that, because it is typically smaller than a mansion, an apartment must have only
one room. Take a typical microcontroller with 2.0 KB of RAM. If 1.0 KB is
placed on chip and the remainder is placed off chip or external to the
semiconductor substrate, the microcontrollers memory is still 2.0 KB, i.e., small
by comparison to a microprocessors, and that limited memory, cf. JA25, will
still render the microcontroller unable to run Java applications without utilizing
Gemaltos inventions.
In any event, the law is clear thatabsent clear and unmistakable statements
that evidence an intent to limit the scope of the claims themselveslimitations
from the specification should not be imported into the claims. See Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1320 (noting that reading a limitation from the written description into the
claims is one of the cardinal sins of claim construction) (quoting SciMed Life
Sys., 242 F.3d at 1340); Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653
F.3d 1296, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, there is nothing in the specification that
amounts to expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope concerning devices that rely on external memory to
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 48 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
49/241
41
store program instructions, id., and thus the district court committed error in
limiting the claims.4
Third, nothing in the prosecution history contravenes the patents disclosure.
There is certainly nothing that comes close to the clear and unmistakable
standard that is required by this Courts precedent. Grober v. Mako Products, Inc.,
686 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The district court did not find otherwise, and
its citation to portions of the prosecution history that highlighted the differences in
typical memory requirements between embedded systems and traditional
computing systems, JA24-25, do not amount to a disclaimer. Again, these
statements simply explain the utility of the applicants inventions, and were not
intended to limit the claims. The law is clear that merely highlighting the objective
of a patent applicants invention does not result in a finding of disclaimer. In re
Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 47 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (This court agrees with the Board
that the specification does not restrict the invention to single chip memory devices.
4Moreover, even if the disclosure in the specification concerning the differences
between microprocessors and microcontrollers amounts to a disclaimer (and
Gemalto respectfully submits that it does not), such a disclaimer should have no
impact on the integrated circuit card claims. Those claims do not recite a
microcontroller; rather, they recite a generic embedded processor, and thespecification makes clear that the processor need not be a microcontroller.
JA90 (4:12-13). Thus, correct or not, the construction for microcontroller should
have no impact on claims that recite a different limitation. SeePhillips, 415 F.3d at
1320 (noting that reading a limitation from the written description into the
claims is one of the cardinal sins of claim construction) (quoting SciMed Life
Sys., 242 F.3d at 1340).
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 49 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
50/241
42
There are no words of manifest exclusion or clear disavowals of multichip
devicesthere are only preferred embodiments and goals of the invention that
are better met by [certain preferred embodiments]. The specification language
shows only that the invention can be carried out with [a preferred embodiment], it
does not require the invention to be so performed.) (emphasis added); Golight,
Inc. v. Wall-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the
patentees description of particular advantage[s] of the invention cannot limit the
claims); Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1301
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (The objective described is merely one of several objectives that
can be achieved through the use of the invention; the written description does not
suggest that the invention must be used only in a manner to attain that objective.).
Fourth, the district courts decision to limit the claims and exclude devices
powered by embedded processors that rely on external memory to store program
instructions is particularly striking given that it makes no commercial sense. The
uncontroverted evidence establishes that throughout the 1990s (and even today)
microcontrollers were regularly designed to use external memory to store program
instructions. See supra at 12. As this Court has noted, in an unpublished decision,
common sense should not be left on the side of the road during claim
construction. Kress Corp. v. Alexander Servs., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12742, *18
(Fed. Cir. June 15, 1998) (unpublished). On the record before the Court, it makes
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 50 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
51/241
43
no sense that the patent applicants would wish to disclaim the very types of
hardware to which persons of ordinary skill in the art would turn to make
commercial embodiments of the inventions taught by the patents.
Fifth, there is no basis for the district courts conclusion that the claims
Gemalto has asserted against Defendants can be infringed only by devices that
permanently store program instructions in on-chip memory. JA12-13. As noted, the
specification discusses both volatile and non-volatile memory, see JA89(2:11-34),
and the claims do not specify that the embodiments of the invention must be
powered by processors that use non-volatile on-chip memory. Indeed, the type of
memory the claimed embodiments processors must carry on-chipbe it RAM,
ROM, or EEPROMis nowhere even discussed in the asserted claims. Moreover,
purpose of the memory claimed in the asserted claims is to stor[e] the
converted applications for executionby the claimed processor. See, e.g., JA98
(claim 1) (emphasis added). Storing for execution and storing permanently,
however, are two different things, and it is undisputed that all the program
instructions executed by the accused Android devices embedded processors are
indeed stored in on-chip memory during execution.
As this Court recently explained, courts called upon to protect hard-earned
intellectual property rights should strive to capture the scope of the actual
invention, rather than strictly limit the scope of claims to disclosed embodiments or
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 51 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
52/241
44
allow the claim language to become divorced from what the specification conveys
is the invention. Retractable Techs., 653 F.3d at 1305. Here, the district courts
claim construction and grant of summary judgment dramatically limited the claims
to a scope significantly narrower than they unambiguously recite. Because the
evidentiary record demonstrates that the applicants intended to claim embodiments
of their inventions that rely on memory external to the processor chip to store
program instructions, the Court should overturn the district courts constructions
and interpret those terms as Gemalto requests. In particular, (1) microcontroller
should be interpreted as a single semi-conductor substrate integrating electronic
circuit components that includes a central processing unit and memory making it
suitable for use as an embedded system; and (2) integrated circuit card should
be interpreted as a card containing a single semiconductor substrate having a
central processing unit and memory.5
5Gemalto acknowledges that the constructions for integrated circuit card and
microcontroller Gemalto pursued in its Objections to the Markman Orderretained references to program memory (as opposed to just memory).
However, to avoid any potential ambiguities concerning the meaning of the term
program memory, Gemalto respectfully submits that the Court adopt
constructions that refer to just memory without the modifier program.
Alternatively, Gemalto respectfully requests that the term program memory be
defined as memory from which the embedded processor executes instructions.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 52 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
53/241
45
B. Even if Its Constructions for the Relevant Claim Terms WereCorrect (And They Are Not), The District Court Erred in
Granting Summary Judgment on Gemaltos Doctrine of
Equivalents Arguments.
Even if the district courts constructions for microcontroller, integrated
circuit card, and programmable device were correct (and they are not), such that
the accused Android smartphones do not literally have all [their] program
memory on the single semiconductor substrate that includes the CPU, the district
court still committed error by entering summary judgment of noninfringement. As
noted, the accused Android smartphones execute 100% of the program instructions
from on-chip cache memory, and 97% of the time the instruction code to be
executed for a given application is stored in the on-chip cache memory (either the
L1 instruction cache, the L1 data cache, or the L2 data cache) before it is requested
or needed by the CPU. JA718; JA731-32. Whether this scenario represents an
insubstantial difference from having 100% of program instructions stored in and
executed from on-chip memory 100% of the time is a question of fact for the jury
to decide. Crown Packaging, 559 F.3d at 1312. The district courts decision to
short-circuit this inquiry pre-trial was contrary to this Courts precedent.
As this Court recently confirmed, Courts should be cautious not to shortcut
this [DOE] inquiry by identifying a binary choice in which an element is present
or not present. Deere, 703 F.3d at 1356-57 (reasonable jury could have found
that indirect contact and direct contact are insubstantially different). Indeed, in
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 53 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
54/241
46
GuideTech, this Court reversed a district courts summary disposition of a DOE
argument on strikingly similar facts: the accused infringer successfully
demonstrated that the accused devices did not literally infringe two of the patents-
in-suit because, as construed by the district court, those patents required that the
capacitors installedoutside of, and in parallel to, a first current circuit, whereas the
accused devices had a capacitor installed within the first current circuit. Brilliant
Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC, 706 F.3d 1342, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Even though this Court agreed that there was no literal infringement, it held that
the district court had improperly granted summary judgment on the patentees
DOE arguments, and reversed and remanded the case for trial. Relying on Deere,
the Court observed:
Everyone agrees that the capacitor in the accused device is not located
in exactly the same place as the claimed capacitor, but is the change
in location an insubstantial difference? We conclude that, viewing all
factual inferences in favor of [the patent holder] [there is] a
genuine issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment.
Id. at 1348 (emphasis added). Here, as was the case in GuideTech, Defendants
persuaded the district court to grant them summary judgment based solely on the
fact that the memory that permanently stores program instructions when not
needed by the embedded processor or microcontroller is located off chip. Just as
this Court held in GuideTech, however, the location of the storage memory cannot
be case-dispositive. That is because the extent to which the accused Android
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 54 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
55/241
47
smartphones reliance on a combination of on-chip execution and off-chip storage
memory is different from having all program instructions stored on chip all the
time should be left for the jury. Id. As was the case inDeere andGuideTech, the
equivalents analysis does not vitiate the all program memory limitation because
the antithesis or opposite of all (100%) is none (0%), not virtually all (97%).
GuideTech, 706 F.3d at 1347 (The vitiation test cannot be satisfied merely by
noting that the equivalent substitute is outside the claimed limitations literal
scope. Rather, vitiation applies when one of skill in the art would understand that
the literal and substitute limitations are not interchangeable, not insubstantially
different, and when they do not perform substantially the same function in
substantially the same way, to accomplish substantially the same result.).
Furthermore, the district court appears to have concluded thateven in the
context of an equivalence inquirythe all program memory limitation can be
met only by permanent, as opposed to volatile cache memory. See JA10-12.
Gemalto respectfully submits that this conclusion is at odds with the evidence.
Again, there is no indication that the patent applicants intended that embodiments
of the claimed inventions use only non-volatile memory on chip with the
processor. JA89(2:11-34). As such, the district courts conclusion that, as a matter
of law, volatile cache memory can never be equivalent to program memory is
unsupported.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 55 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
56/241
48
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTEDFor all of these reasons, this Court should: reverse the district courts
construction of the terms microcontroller, integrated circuit card, and
programmable device; adopt Gemaltos proposed constructions of those terms;
and reverse the summary judgments of noninfringement based on those terms. This
Court should then vacate the final judgments and remand this litigation to the
district court for further proceedings.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 56 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against Google Samsung HTC
57/241
49
Respectfully submitted,
Dirk D. Thomas
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
1999 K Street, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 370-8302
/s/ Robert A. Cote
Robert A. Cote
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
New York, New York 10036
(212) 402-9400
Joel L. Thollander
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 692-8735
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
Gemalto S.A.
Case: 13-1397 Document: 34 Page: 57 Filed: 07/09/2013
7/28/2019 13-07-09 Gemalto Appellate Brief Against G