United States District Court, D. Delaware
B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, MORRIS, NICHOLS,
ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Roberts,
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, San Francisco, CA;
and Alyssa Caridis and Geoffrey Moss, ORRICK, HERRINGTON
& SUTCLIFFE, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
L. Pascale and Robert M. Vrana, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; and Casey A. Kniser, ZUBER LAWLER
& DEL DUCA LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant.
ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the issue of claim construction of various terms
in U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 879, 828 ("the '828
patent"), 8, 861, 840 ("the '840 patent"),
9, 165, 410 ("the '410 Patent"), 9, 171, 405
("the '405 Patent"), 9, 953, 111 ("the
'111 Patent"), and 10, 030, 979 ("the '979
Patent"). I have considered the Parties' Joint Claim
Construction Brief. (D.I. 49). I heard oral argument on
January 2, 2020. (D.I. 51).
'840 and '405 Patents describe and claim technology
for building three-dimensional scenes that represent a
physical space. (D.I. 46, Ex. C at 1:49-2:30). The claimed
techniques involve capturing three-dimensional image data
from multiple locations and aligning that data into a single
three-dimensional scene. (Id.) This technology might
be used, for example, by someone who uses a 3D camera to
collect 3D data of the interior of a house or apartment. The
'840 and '405 Patents aim at solving a problem that
arises when the image capture process leads to errors. The
parties agree that these errors show up in the form of
"holes," missing or poor-quality data that remains
after three-dimensional image data has been collected.
'410 patent describes and claims a system and techniques
for the "capture and alignment of multiple 3D
scenes." (D.I. 46, Ex. D at 1:55-56). Data comprising 3D
scenes captured at different locations are aligned into a
composite 3D scene. (Id. at 2:1-12, 6:20-23). The
independent claims of the '410 Patent each contain the
term "spatial distortion" and identify the term as
something "applied" to sets of three-dimensional
data; a transformation that results in an aligned 3D scene.
For example, Claim 1 talks about "receiving... two or
more sets of three-dimensional data respectively comprising
points in a three-dimensional coordinate space" and then
"determining ... a spatial distortion to be applied to
at least one set of the two or more sets...."(Mat
'111 patent deals with data that could lead to an
automated generation of 3D models of real-world locations
such as houses, apartments, and office spaces. For example,
flat surfaces such as walls and floors are distinctive and
could be identified as such. Missing data or
"holes" associated with flat surfaces can be
generated to fill in the missing 3D data. See
generally, D.I. 46, Ex. Fat 3:9-28.
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) (internal
quotation marks omitted). '"[T]here is no magic
formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.'
Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight
to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and
policies that inform patent law.'" SoftView LLC
v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at * 1 (D. Del. Sept. 4,
2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324)
(alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a
court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent
specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370
(1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually,
it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315
(internal quotation marks omitted).
words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning. . . . [Which is] the meaning that the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
effective filing date of the patent application."
Id. at 1312-13 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term
is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the
entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation
marks omitted). "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of
claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art
may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
construction in such cases involves little more than the
application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
understood words." Id. at 1314.
court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent
claims, the specification, and the prosecution history-the
court's construction is a determination of law. See
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831,
841 (2015). The court may also make factual findings based
upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which
"consists of all evidence external to the patent and
prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1317-19 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the
underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in
the art, and how the invention works. Id. Extrinsic
evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim
construction than the patent and its prosecution history.
claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a
certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of
the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that
would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct
interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
CONSTRUCTION OF ...