• QPRC

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

411 Theodore Fremd Ave. Suite 206S
Rye, NY 10580

(888) 743-7577 | info@qprc.com

© 2019 Quest Patent Research Corporation

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn