[00:00:01] Speaker 04: Our next case this morning is number 20-2328, Polaris Power LED Technologies versus Vizio. [00:00:38] Speaker 04: Mr. Pankiewicz, please. [00:00:41] Speaker 02: Good morning. [00:00:42] Speaker 02: May it please the court? [00:00:45] Speaker 02: The issue today is the district court's construction of a network of semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:00:57] Speaker 02: The district court aired in at least three ways in its construction of this term. [00:01:05] Speaker 02: First, the district court improperly limited the construction of the preferred embodiment, figure eight, based on a single sentence in the specification. [00:01:15] Speaker 02: Second, the district court improperly construed network of as a closed rather than open-ended term. [00:01:20] Speaker 02: And third, the district court construed network contrary to the specification as a whole by ignoring, for example, disclosures regarding figures 2A and 3A, which discuss networks of semiconductor switches. [00:01:36] Speaker 00: There's nothing in the claims at all that refers to parallel circuitry, right? [00:01:41] Speaker 02: There is nothing in the claim that refers to parallel circuitry. [00:01:44] Speaker 00: But you're trying to read that into the claims, correct? [00:01:48] Speaker 02: No, we're not trying to read parallel circuitry. [00:01:51] Speaker 02: Just to be perfectly clear, what our construction does is attempt to give meaning to network as well as the semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:02:03] Speaker 00: So the... But you're saying that network must include parallel circuitry? [00:02:11] Speaker 02: So what we're saying is that [00:02:13] Speaker 02: Inherent in network and in the disclosure of specification, a network can have branching in it. [00:02:20] Speaker 02: It can be a more sophisticated system than just a string. [00:02:23] Speaker 02: When a network has branching, there is inherently some parallelness to the different branches. [00:02:28] Speaker 02: However, each path must have semiconductor switches in series. [00:02:33] Speaker 04: I don't see that your expert said that. [00:02:37] Speaker 04: I didn't see that your expert addressed the meaning of the term network in that respect. [00:02:49] Speaker 04: Because the opposing expert did say that network in this context means sequential or not parallel, a network of sequential. [00:03:02] Speaker 02: I believe our expert did submit a declaration where he talked about branching within the plain meaning [00:03:52] Speaker 04: You can try to find it and show it to us on your remodel. [00:03:57] Speaker 04: I didn't see it there. [00:04:37] Speaker 02: So, I'm on an appendix by 15655, paragraph 40. [00:04:51] Speaker 02: Our expert gives a declaration where he discusses the meaning of network. [00:04:57] Speaker 02: He says, a plane medium-term network encompasses collections of electrical components that can be connected and arranged for multiple interrelated circuits with multiple paths or branches. [00:05:06] Speaker 02: member sees it provide an explanation of that. [00:05:10] Speaker 02: So his understanding of the plain meaning of network of semiconductor switches in the context of this patent involves having more than just a string, being able to have branch formations, which makes sense. [00:05:25] Speaker 02: This is for [00:05:29] Speaker 03: Largest place it makes sense you would have a more sophisticated circuitry than just a single string of semiconductor switches and Breadth patterns of switches are shown in the specification I understand that but if that's the kind of network you envision then why didn't you define it as that instead of a network specifically made up of switches coupled in series and [00:05:54] Speaker 02: Because the idea here is that each half you would have the semiconductors coupled in series. [00:06:00] Speaker 02: So you can imagine if you have a large display being driven by a single power source. [00:06:05] Speaker 02: You're going to have different banks of LEDs. [00:06:09] Speaker 02: And you can have these paths. [00:06:10] Speaker 02: So you can have a string controlling each bank. [00:06:13] Speaker 02: But you will have a branching network to control the entire display. [00:06:17] Speaker 02: So the idea here. [00:06:18] Speaker 04: But coupled in series means sequential, right? [00:06:23] Speaker 02: Coupled in series would mean that the current can flow sequentially through them, yes. [00:06:28] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:06:29] Speaker 04: When you talk about a network of things coupled in series, why isn't that a network series circuitry? [00:06:41] Speaker 02: Well, it says it's talking about a network of components in series, not a series circuit, per se. [00:06:47] Speaker 02: And in other words, there's nothing there that limits it to being a single electrical loop. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: The way the claim is written, it has to be a network that has semiconductor switches. [00:06:58] Speaker 04: But it says network coupled in series, which seems to suggest that it's talking about series circuitry. [00:07:11] Speaker 02: I would say that network here, if that was the case, then network of would have absolutely nothing to the claim. [00:07:18] Speaker 02: You could just write semiconductor switches coupled in series and have exactly the same meaning. [00:07:22] Speaker 02: They added the extra words of network of, because it was contemplated that you could have a more complicated network that had branching in it. [00:07:34] Speaker 02: I mean, even figure 8 is referred to as a simplified schematic for a reason. [00:07:39] Speaker 04: But your expert doesn't say what you're saying, if I understand it right. [00:07:47] Speaker 04: Yes, he does address the term network, but he doesn't say network coupled in series. [00:07:53] Speaker 04: includes parallel circuitry, does he? [00:08:00] Speaker 02: I don't think he uses those literal words, no. [00:08:02] Speaker 03: I mean, you're trying to have us look at the word network in this phrase in a general context not defined by the rest of the phrase that limits it. [00:08:14] Speaker 03: That's what you cite in your expert declaration, and there's no doubt there could be a more complicated network as you describe. [00:08:21] Speaker 03: But network in the claim is modified by semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:08:27] Speaker 03: So why isn't that the plain language naturally talking about a specific kind of network, which is one of switches coupled in series? [00:08:39] Speaker 02: Well, I think having a network where each path is in series but also encompassed within that definition. [00:08:45] Speaker 02: The idea of network is not that it is only limited to a string. [00:08:52] Speaker 03: It is when you define it that way in your patent claim. [00:08:55] Speaker 03: I mean, if you had a view that this was, could encompass multiple paths and branching and everything you're talking about, why isn't that written into the claim? [00:09:06] Speaker 02: We think it is by network. [00:09:07] Speaker 02: I mean, if you look at how the term is used, how network is used throughout the specifications. [00:09:11] Speaker 03: Are you saying network can never mean just a network of switches coupled in series? [00:09:16] Speaker 03: That it always means branches? [00:09:18] Speaker 02: No, no, I'm not saying it excludes. [00:09:20] Speaker 02: All I'm saying is that encompass is something more than a string. [00:09:24] Speaker 00: So are you, do you think that court was wrong to focus on figure eight? [00:09:31] Speaker 02: I think the court was wrong to focus only on Figure 8, particularly, and not look at the specifications of both. [00:09:37] Speaker 00: Where in the spec is there a discussion of branching? [00:09:42] Speaker 02: Well, I think if you look at both 2A and 3A discuss networks of semiconductor switches. [00:09:52] Speaker 04: So for instance, there is... That's dealing with a different limitation, right? [00:09:59] Speaker 04: I'm sorry. [00:10:01] Speaker 04: That's not dealing with this issue. [00:10:02] Speaker 04: 3A and 3A as opposed to 8. [00:10:10] Speaker 04: It's dealing with... 2A and 3A don't report to show networks coupled in series, right? [00:10:16] Speaker 02: Well, 3A does in different words. [00:10:18] Speaker 02: If we look at page 47 of the blue brief, there's an annotated version of figure 3A that may be helpful for this discussion. [00:10:29] Speaker 00: Well, where in the discussion does it tie those two concepts together? [00:10:36] Speaker 02: OK, so it shows the coupled series in the second network here in the red boxes. [00:10:43] Speaker 02: And up above is a block quote from the patent. [00:10:46] Speaker 02: And it describes these semiconductor switches, 328, 330, 332, and 334, alternatively conduct in pairs. [00:10:55] Speaker 02: Alternatively conduct in pairs is another way of saying coupled in series. [00:11:01] Speaker 02: So the way this works is S4 and S2, if they conduct in pairs, they are coupled in series with each other. [00:11:08] Speaker 02: The current is going to flow directly sequentially through those two, or it's going to flow through one and three. [00:11:15] Speaker 02: That's what it means by alternately conduct in pairs. [00:11:18] Speaker 02: It's using different words that say the same concept. [00:11:21] Speaker 00: But everything between [00:11:23] Speaker 00: those figures and figure eight differ except the one issue with respect to the initiation source, right? [00:11:35] Speaker 02: They certainly differ in that everything in this patent is about driving light sources. [00:11:41] Speaker 02: The initial volume is dealing with driving cold cathode fluorescent lamps, which is slightly different circuitry than the example in figure eight, which is driving LEDs. [00:11:52] Speaker 02: So there is a difference based on the light source that's being driven in these environments. [00:12:22] Speaker 04: Anything further, you want to save the rest of your rebuttal time? [00:12:32] Speaker 02: Let's see. [00:12:33] Speaker 02: Yeah, I'll save the rest for rebuttal. [00:12:39] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:12:39] Speaker 02: Thank you, Mr. Patel. [00:12:43] Speaker 04: Mr. Irwin? [00:12:52] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:12:53] Speaker 01: May it please the court? [00:12:55] Speaker 01: I'd like to start with figures 2a and 3a, if I may. [00:12:59] Speaker 01: From my perspective, those specifically show figures that have series and parallel circuits. [00:13:10] Speaker 01: So for example, [00:13:12] Speaker 01: Opposing counsel referred to instances where those figures could have two switches in series. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: But it also has switches that are coupled in parallel. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: It's a combination of both. [00:13:27] Speaker 01: And so, as I think Judge O'Malley referred to, that portion of the specification never references a network of semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:13:39] Speaker 01: And if the claim was written in a way that it was just a network of semiconductor switches, then that would be a different story. [00:13:49] Speaker 01: But we're talking about a claim term. [00:13:52] Speaker 01: The plain meaning has an adjective at the end, coupled in series. [00:13:57] Speaker 00: So it's not... What does coupled in series modify? [00:14:01] Speaker 00: Does that modify the semiconductor switches? [00:14:03] Speaker 00: You're having it modify the entirety of network, right? [00:14:07] Speaker 01: It modifies the semiconductor switches that make up the network. [00:14:12] Speaker 01: So it's a network of semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:14:15] Speaker 01: The word network is an important piece because those switches have a shared purpose. [00:14:23] Speaker 01: They have a function. [00:14:24] Speaker 01: They're part of what the claim refers to. [00:14:27] Speaker 01: as a multi-load time-sharing driver. [00:14:30] Speaker 01: And what does that mean? [00:14:31] Speaker 01: Multi-load is referring to the plurality of light sources. [00:14:35] Speaker 01: And time-sharing is referring to whether or not those light sources are on or off. [00:14:40] Speaker 01: It's selectively open and closed based on the controller. [00:14:45] Speaker 01: So what's important in terms of that word network is that those are working together as part of this driver to either selectively turn on or turn off. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: And so that's where the court gave that word meaning when it referred to it as a collection of. [00:15:04] Speaker 01: And if I may, I would refer to the district court's order. [00:15:09] Speaker 01: This is at the appendix at page nine. [00:15:13] Speaker 01: And in this portion of the order, the court is referring to the word network. [00:15:19] Speaker 01: And it says the term is used in the claims and specification to show that there is an overall relationship [00:15:27] Speaker 01: among the claimed semiconductor switches. [00:15:30] Speaker 01: It is not rendered redundant by vizios or the court's interpretation of coupled in series. [00:15:36] Speaker 01: And we think that that is critical. [00:15:37] Speaker 01: It's not just a string of semiconductor switches. [00:15:41] Speaker 01: It's referring to a network of semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:15:48] Speaker 00: But so why can't the network then include branches, as long as each branch includes semiconductor [00:15:57] Speaker 00: coupled in a series. [00:15:59] Speaker 01: So I want to make sure I understand your question. [00:16:01] Speaker 01: Why can't the network include? [00:16:03] Speaker 01: Branches. [00:16:04] Speaker 01: So the semiconductor switches that are part of the network are coupled in series. [00:16:11] Speaker 01: And that means that they're sequential or one after the other. [00:16:15] Speaker 01: If there were to be branching in that circumstance, they no longer would be coupled in series. [00:16:21] Speaker 01: And I can give you an example that I think will help. [00:16:24] Speaker 01: This comes straight from Polaris' reply brief. [00:16:29] Speaker 01: And in that brief, [00:16:32] Speaker 01: and I can direct it to page four, they give an example. [00:16:37] Speaker 01: And in that example, they show three switches. [00:16:40] Speaker 01: There's a switch one, and then it branches into switch two and switch three. [00:16:46] Speaker 01: And what Polaris says in its brief is that all of the switches in each path [00:16:53] Speaker 01: in this example are coupled in series. [00:16:56] Speaker 01: Now, in fact, that's actually not true. [00:16:59] Speaker 01: Polaris gives two examples. [00:17:01] Speaker 01: The first example is where switch one and switch two are closed, and they call that path one, and they say two switches in series. [00:17:12] Speaker 01: They give a second example where they say switch one and switch three are closed, and they call that a path of two switches in series. [00:17:22] Speaker 01: But the example they don't give you is when all three switches are closed. [00:17:27] Speaker 01: And in that instance, the current will go through the first switch, and then it will branch at the node, and it will divide. [00:17:34] Speaker 01: And half the current will go to switch two, and half the current will go to switch three. [00:17:39] Speaker 01: That's entirely diametrically opposite of what the claim is calling for. [00:17:43] Speaker 01: It calls for a network of semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:17:48] Speaker 01: This would allow switches that are coupled in parallel. [00:17:52] Speaker 01: And again, if the applicant wished to include that as part of its claim, they could have just set a network of semiconductor switches. [00:18:01] Speaker 01: They didn't need to include the language coupled in series. [00:18:17] Speaker 01: Now, I think that [00:18:22] Speaker 01: Polaris makes an argument about the court reading in an embodiment from Figure 8. [00:18:28] Speaker 01: So I wanted to address that as well. [00:18:30] Speaker 01: From our perspective, the district court simply applied the plain meaning of the language of the claim. [00:18:37] Speaker 01: The court, of course, looked to the specification and, of course, looked to Figure 8, which I think all parties agree is relevant to the claim term. [00:18:50] Speaker 01: I've talked a lot about figures 2A and 3A. [00:18:54] Speaker 01: And that's something that is instructive. [00:18:56] Speaker 01: The court didn't specifically reference those figures. [00:18:59] Speaker 01: And that, of course, is for the reason that it wasn't referring to a network of semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:19:08] Speaker 01: I also wanted to mention that to this notion that the district court [00:19:12] Speaker 01: read in or relied specifically on figure eight. [00:19:16] Speaker 01: The district court also rejected Vizio's proposed construction in part. [00:19:22] Speaker 01: The court did not adopt Vizio's construction verbatim and Vizio had made an argument about the purpose of the switches and the fact that the switches had a one-to-one correspondence with the light sources. [00:19:39] Speaker 01: And the district court rejected that, even though that's exactly what Figure 8 shows. [00:19:47] Speaker 01: Now, I spoke to this a little bit already, but again, we would assert that Polaris is essentially considering the word network in a vacuum. [00:20:00] Speaker 01: You know, when they talk about network having a plain meaning of branching [00:20:07] Speaker 01: I would respectfully assert that that's just simply not correct and doesn't take into account the full scope of the claim term and the full scope of the claim. [00:20:16] Speaker 01: If we look at the plain language as we talked about, it's very clear that it's not simply a network or simply a network of semiconductor switches, but a network of semiconductor switches coupled in series. [00:20:40] Speaker 01: No, your honor. [00:20:45] Speaker 01: That's all I have. [00:20:46] Speaker 01: Thank you very much. [00:21:14] Speaker 02: So I think contrary to what we just heard, we're not looking at network of in a vacuum, but in how it's used in the claim. [00:21:24] Speaker 02: And I think one problem with the district court's construction, by limiting it to just being a string of semiconductor switches, is it's interpreting network of, as it was said, network consisting of as a closed-ended term when it should be construed as an open-ended term. [00:21:41] Speaker 02: The language here is analogous to what we saw in the Gillette case cited in our brief. [00:21:47] Speaker 02: In Gillette, the language of the claim was a safety razor blade unit comprising a guard cap and a group of first, second, and third blades. [00:21:57] Speaker 02: And the issue there was whether group of was an open or closed-ended term. [00:22:01] Speaker 02: And the court reasoned that [00:22:05] Speaker 02: the applicant chose to claim group of rather than group consisting of. [00:22:09] Speaker 02: And therefore, group of was presumptively open-ended. [00:22:14] Speaker 02: The court also noted that the fact that the claim term used to transition comprising along with group of, quote, underscored this open-ended claim meaning, end quote. [00:22:25] Speaker 02: And we have the same situation here. [00:22:26] Speaker 02: The same logic applies. [00:22:28] Speaker 02: Claim one uses two open-ended phrases, uses comprising as a transition, and then network of. [00:22:34] Speaker 02: The applicants here, like the applicants in Gillette, chose to claim a network of rather than a network consisting of. [00:22:44] Speaker 00: What's your response to the criticism of the figure in your reply brief? [00:22:52] Speaker 00: I actually was pretty confused by that, because I thought your best argument was that you could still have these semiconductors coupled in a series, but you could [00:23:04] Speaker 00: do them in parallel, and that figure doesn't have anything to do with being in parallel. [00:23:09] Speaker 02: Figure 3A has absolutely nothing to do with being in parallel. [00:23:13] Speaker 00: If you read how Figure 3A actually operates... No, I'm talking about the figure in your reply brief, which was confusing to me, the one on page 4. [00:23:22] Speaker 00: How does that help you? [00:23:29] Speaker 02: So I think, you know, starting on page 3 was attempting to illustrate [00:23:34] Speaker 02: is that network has to have some meaning. [00:23:36] Speaker 02: So if you just have three switches, that semiconductor switch is coupled in series. [00:23:41] Speaker 02: No need to even have network in the claim. [00:23:43] Speaker 02: The idea of network is you can have different branches in there. [00:23:48] Speaker 02: If it operates that only one path is going at a time, you can have different branches where it's in series. [00:23:55] Speaker 02: It was an oversimplification, perhaps, of what it would look like. [00:24:05] Speaker 02: Then returning to the district court's order, there's no indication in the order that the district court ever attempted to apply the plain meaning. [00:24:14] Speaker 02: The court does not rely on any dictionary definition cited by the parties. [00:24:17] Speaker 04: Okay, but we're reviewing the district court's construction de novo. [00:24:21] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:24:22] Speaker 02: I just want to make that point because he had indicated the district court did find the plain meaning. [00:24:26] Speaker 02: And I was simply pointing out that it did not do so. [00:24:30] Speaker 02: But understood. [00:24:31] Speaker 04: I think we're out of time. [00:24:33] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:24:34] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:24:34] Speaker 04: Thank both counsel.