Semcon IP v. Amazon.com, Inc.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Claim Construction M

The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff submits: Processors are operable at certain frequency and voltage settings, as published in product data sheets. Outside of these settings, the processor cannot function. Further, the “nominal” setting is the normal setting for the operating conditions, as stated on the product data sheets. This is known to the person of ordinary skill in the art. Dkt. No. 48 at 25–26.

In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’708 Patent col.5 ll.26–29, col.5 ll.36–39. Extrinsic evidence: Carbonell Decl. ¶¶ 67, 73–75 (Plaintiff’s Ex. E, Dkt. No. 48-6 at 26–29).

Defendant responds: The Asserted Patents provide no guidance regarding what makes a processor not capable of functioning or even what level of dysfunction rises to not functioning. Further, there is no indication in the patents that a processor product data sheet specifies parameters at which the processor is not able to function. Rather, the patents teach that it is possible to run the processor outside the recommended levels. Thus, there is no way to determine what is means for a processor to be unable to function. Dkt. No. 50 at 31–32.

In addition to the claims themselves, Defendant cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’708 Patent figs.2, 4 col.4 l.58 – col.5 l.18, col.5 l.42 – col.7 l.24, col.7 ll.32–52. Extrinsic evidence: Thornton Decl. ¶ 97 (Defendant’s Ex. H, Dkt. No. 50-9 at 38).

Plaintiff replies: Defendant’s position fails to account for the information available to persons of ordinary skill in the art; namely, product data sheets. In the context of this information, whether a processor can function at specified frequency and voltage pairings is reasonably certain. Dkt. No. 53 at 13.

Analysis

The issue is whether what it means that a processor is not capable of functioning or cannot function is reasonably certain to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is.

These terms are related to the frequency and voltage pairings for operating a processor. For example, Claim 1 of the ’708 Patent provides that the “processor is not capable of functioning at said first frequency and said second voltage.” Claim 26 of the patent provides that the “processing unit can not function at said second frequency and said first voltage.” The Asserted Patents describe:

• The power consumed by a CMOS integrated circuit is given approximately by P=CV2f, where C is the active switching capacitance, V is the supply voltage, and f is the frequency of operation. The maximum allowable frequency is described by fmax=kV, where k is a constant.

• It is desirable to operate the processor at the lowest possible voltage at a frequency that provides the computing power desired by the user at any given moment.

’061 Patent col.1 ll.42–50.

That is, the patents explain that there is a maximum frequency allowable for a given processor voltage. “If the frequency is to be increased, it is first necessary that the voltage be increased to allow the processor to function at a higher frequency. In such a case, it is first necessary to increase the voltage level of operation.” Id. at col.6 ll.2–6. That is, if the frequency is increased beyond that allowed by the voltage, the processor will be unable to function—it is not capable of functioning, it can not function. In the context of the patents, this is shown by the relationship between maximum allowable frequency and voltage: fmax=kV. Ultimately, whether a particular processor is unable to function at a particular voltage-frequency pairing is a factual issue.

Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for including the “is not capable of functioning” or “can not function.” The Court holds that the “Is Not Capable of Functioning”and “Can Not Function” Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00192

Semcon IP v. Amazon.com, Inc.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Claim Construction L

The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff submits: The Court in Huawei held that the meaning of “permitted power consumption” of “determining a level of permitted power consumption” was reasonably certain. The issue here is the same as that before the Court in Huawei. The permitted power consumption level, the level of permitted power consumption, is known to those of skill in the art to be a function of device parameters and operational circumstances. Dkt. No. 48 at 24–25.

In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following extrinsic evidence to support its position: Carbonell Decl. ¶¶ 70–71 (Plaintiff’s Ex. E, Dkt. No. 48-6 at 27–28).

Defendant responds: The Asserted Patents provide no guidance regarding what makes a particular power level permitted or not and “level of permitted power” is not a term of art with definite meaning. Further, there is no indication in the patents that the operating levels specified in a product data sheet establishes what is or is not a “level or permitted power.” Rather, the patents teach that it is possible to run the processor outside the specified levels. Thus, there is no way to determine whether any particular level is a “level of permitted power.” Dkt. No. 50 at 30–31.

In addition to the claims themselves, Defendant cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’708 Patent col.7 ll.32–52. Extrinsic evidence: Thornton Decl. ¶¶ 93–94 (Defendant’s Ex. H, Dkt. No. 50-9 at 37).

Plaintiff replies: Defendant’s position fails to account for the information available to persons of ordinary skill in the art; namely, product data sheets. In the context of this information, what constitutes a “level of permitted power” is reasonably certain. Dkt. No. 53 at 13.

Plaintiff cites further extrinsic evidence to support its position: Carbonell Decl. ¶¶ 69–72 (Plaintiff’s Ex. E, Dkt. No. 48-6 at 27–28).

Analysis

The issue is whether the meaning of “level of permitted power” of a processor is reasonably certain to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is.

This is substantially the same issue as addressed by the Court in Huawei. There, the Court held that the meaning of “determining the level of permitted power consumption” in Claim 1 of the ’247 Patent is reasonably certain. Huawei, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108040, at *31–34. For the reasons set forth in Huawei, the Court reiterates that the meaning of this term in the context of Claim 1 of the ’247 Patent is reasonably certain.

Accordingly, Defendant has failed to prove that any claim is indefinite for including “level of permitted power.” The Court hereby holds that the term “level of permitted power” has its plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00192

Semcon IP v. Amazon.com, Inc.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Claim Construction K

The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff submits: The term “safe level,” in the context of the processor temperature, plainly means the maximum temperature level provided in published standards and specifications sheets for a processor. Dkt. No. 48 at 23–24.

In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’708 Patent col.7 ll.37–41. Extrinsic evidence: Carbonell Decl. ¶ 67 (Plaintiff’s Ex. E, Dkt. No. 48-6 at 26–27).

Defendant responds: The Asserted Patents provide no guidance regarding what makes a particular level safe and “safe level” is not a term of art with definite meaning. Further, there is no indication in the patents that the operating levels specified in a product data sheet establishes what is or is not a “safe level.” Rather, the patents teach that it is possible to run the processor outside the specified levels, so long as the temperature stays below a “safe level.” Thus, there is no way to determine whether any particular level is a “safe level.” Dkt. No. 50 at 28–30.

In addition to the claims themselves, Defendant cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’708 Patent col.7 ll.32–52. Extrinsic evidence: Thornton Decl. ¶ 91 (Defendant’s Ex. H, Dkt. No. 50-9 at 36–37).

Plaintiff replies: Defendant’s position fails to account for the information available to persons of ordinary skill in the art; namely, product data sheets. In the context of this information, what constitutes a “safe level” is reasonably certain. Dkt. No. 53 at 12–13.

Plaintiff cites further extrinsic evidence to support its position: Carbonell Decl. ¶¶ 66–68 (Plaintiff’s Ex. E, Dkt. No. 48-6 at 25–27).

Analysis

The issue is whether the meaning of “safe level” for a processor’s temperature is reasonably certain to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is.

The meaning of the “safe level” of Claims 30, 32, 42, 44, 48, and 50 of the ’708 Patent is reasonably certain. The Asserted Patents provide:

• It should be noted that at some point during the monitoring operation it may be found that the processor is functioning at a normal frequency and voltage, that the temperature of operation is below some preselected value, and that a series of processor-intensive commands have been furnished to be executed by the processor. In such a case, these characteristics suggest that it may be desirable to increase the voltage and frequency of operation in order to handle these commands for a period less than would raise operating temperatures beyond a safe level. In such a case, the control software may compute higher frequency and voltage values and a temperature (or a time within which temperature will not increase beyond a selected level) in order to cause the hardware to move to this higher frequency state of operation. In such a case, the processor executing the process illustrated effectively ramps up the frequency and voltage so that the processor “sprints” for a short time to accomplish the desired operations. This has the effect of allowing a processor which nominally runs at a lower frequency to attain operational rates reached by more powerful processors during those times when such rates are advantageous.

’061 Patent col.7 ll.40–61.

It is possible to clear a back-log of commands by increasing the processor’s operating frequency (its core clock) for a period of time. It is important, however, to keep the temperature of operation at a “safe level.” One of ordinary skill in the art would read this disclosure with the knowledge that processors are designed to be functional below a certain temperature. See Carbonell Decl. ¶ 67, Dkt. No. 48-6 at 26–27. Processor manufacturers provide the temperature beyond which the processor may no longer be operable. Id. With this context, it is reasonably certain that “safe level” refers to the temperature beyond which the processor may not function properly. Going beyond that level poses a risk that the processor will not function properly and defeat the purpose of increasing the frequency.

The claims involving a “safe level” of temperature parallel and are informed by the above-quoted overclocking description from the patent. For example, Claim 30 of the ’708 Patent depends from a series of claims related to increasing the processor frequency and voltage (Claim 27) for a period of time (Claim 28) less than required for temperature to increase beyond a “safe level” (Claims 29, 30). This closely parallels the overclocking disclosure in the patent. “Safe level” should be interpreted in the context of this disclosure and with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus its meaning is reasonably certain.

Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for inclusion of the term “safe level.” The Court hereby construes “safe level” to mean “maximum operable temperature.”

Case No. 2:18-cv-00192