Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_________________________________________

)

)

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. AND )

PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA )

CORP., )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC

)

v. )

)

WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION, d/b/a )

WAC LIGHTING CO., )

)

Defendants.

_________________________________________

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASPER, J. December 11, 2017

I. Introduction

In this patent dispute, Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Lighting North

America Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) alleges that Wangs Alliance Corporation (“WAC”)

is engaged in activities that infringe eight light emitting diode (“LED”) related patents: United

States Patents Nos. 6,147,458 (“the ’458 patent”), 6,250,774 (“the ‘774 patent”), 6,561,690 (“the

’690 patent”), 6,586,890 (“the ’890 patent”), 6,788,011 (“the ’011 patent”), 7,038,399 (“the ’399

patent”), and 7,352,138 (“the ’138 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-In-Suit”).1 The parties seek

construction of disputed claims terms. The Court conducted a Markman hearing prior to staying

this case for inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) and

1 The parties are in agreement about the construction of terms in the ‘774 patent. D. 60 at

3 n.1. Patent No. 6,013,988 (“the ’988 patent”) has been withdrawn. D. 174 at 5.

then solicited and considered counsel’s supplemental filings, D. 174, 178, 179. With this

backdrop, the Court’s claim construction as to the remaining twelve disputed terms now follows.

II. Patents-in-Suit

This lawsuit involves patents that are directed to circuitry, optics and multicolored-lighting

technologies contained within lighting products and systems that employ light-emitting diodes

(“LEDs”) for illumination. See, e.g., ‘011, D. 30-6; ‘138, D. 30-8; see also D. 30 ¶ 6.

Patents ‘458, ‘690 and ‘890 relate to circuitry technology that controls the power feed to

the LEDs. Tr. 1:5.2 The ‘458 patent, “Circuit Arrangement and Signalling Light Provided with

the Circuit Arrangement,” was filed on June 29, 1999 and issued on November 14, 2000. D. 30-

2. The ‘690 patent, “Luminaire Based on the Light Emission of Light-emitting Diodes,” was filed

on August 20, 2001 and issued on May 13, 2003. D. 30-4. The ‘890 patent, “LED Driver Circuit

with PWM Output,” was filed on December 5, 2001 and issued on July 1, 2003. D. 30-5.

Patents ‘011 and ‘399 pertain to optics technology that affect LED light emission

characteristics and illumination. Tr. 1:5. The ‘011 patent, titled “Multicolored LED Lighting

Method and Apparatus,” was filed on October 4, 2001 and issued on September 7, 2004. D. 30-6.

The ‘399 patent, titled “Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting Devices,” was

filed on May 9, 2003 and issued on May 2, 2006. D. 30-7. Patent ‘138 pertains to multicolored-

lighting technology that enables and controls the mixing of LEDs of different colors. Tr. 1:5. The

‘138 patent, also titled “Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting Devices,” was

filed on April 18, 2006 and issued on April 1, 2008. D. 30-8. It is a continuation of the ‘399

patent. Id.

2 References to the Markman hearing transcript are abbreviated as “Tr. __:__,” with the

first number representing the relevant day of hearing and the second number referencing the

specific page (or pages) of the transcript.

III. Procedural History

Philips instituted this action on May 28, 2014, D. 1, and filed an amended complaint on

January 12, 2015. D. 30. On February 20, 2015, both parties filed preliminary claim construction

briefs. D. 35; D. 40. The Court held a Markman hearing over the course of two days. D. 80, 87.

Shortly after the first day of the Markman hearing, on May 28, 2015, WAC filed IPR petitions,

challenging the validity of every asserted claim in seven of the eight patents-in-suit, D. 95 at 12,

and then on June 16, 2015, moved to stay this case, D. 94. The Court allowed the motion and the

matter was stayed until after the PTAB issued its IPR rulings. D. 156. After the IPR rulings and

the parties’ unsuccessful attempt at mediation, D. 170-71, the parties asked the Court to return to

matter of claim construction and the Court allowed the parties to file supplemental briefing,

including an updated claim construction chart indicating whether the parties’ respective positions

about construction changed before the PTAB and considered further arguments regarding same.

IV. Standard of Review

The construction of disputed claim terms is a question of law. Markman v. Westview

Instruments, 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). For claim construction, courts must construe “the meaning

that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of . . . the

effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.

Cir. 2005). To do so, the Court must look to “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder

of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific

principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. at 1314 (quoting

Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

A. The Claims

The analysis begins with the language of the claim which “define[s] the invention to which

the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Id. at 1312 (citing Innova, 381 F.3d at 1115). “[T]he

context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id. at 1314. Courts

may find that the claim itself provides the means for construing the term where, for example, the

claim term is used consistently throughout the patent. Id. In that case, “the meaning of a term in

one claim is likely the meaning of that same term in another.” Abbott GmbH & Co., KG v.

Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc., No. 09-11340-FDS, 2011 WL 948403, at *3 (D. Mass. Mar. 15,

2011) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314). Furthermore, “the presence of a dependent claim that

adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present

in the independent claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.

1. Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations

A claim limitation may be expressed in a means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. §

112 ¶ 6,3 which provides:

[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for

performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in

support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding

structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

“Thus, § 112, ¶ 6 operates to restrict claim limitations drafted in such functional language to those

structures, materials, or acts disclosed in the specification (and their equivalents) that perform the

claimed function.” Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 161 F.3d 696, 703

(Fed. Cir. 1998); see MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

3 Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with § 112(f) when § 4(c) of the America

Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, took effect on September 16, 2012. Because the

applications resulting in the patents at issue in this case were filed before that date, the Court will

refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.

(noting that “[a] disclosed structure is a ‘corresponding structure’ only if the specification or

prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim”).

The use of the word “means” creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies and, conversely, the

failure to use the word “means” creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Personalized

Media Commc’ns, LLC, 161 F.3d at 703-04; see Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299

F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This presumption may be overcome in two ways. Allen Eng’g

Corp., 299 F.3d at 1347. “First, a claim element that uses the word ‘means' but recites no function

corresponding to the means does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6.” Id. “Second, even if the claim element

specifies a function, if it also recites sufficient structure or material for performing that function,

§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply.” Id.

B. The Specification

The claims “do not stand alone” but “are part of a fully integrated written instrument,

consisting principally of a specification,” which “is always highly relevant to the claim

construction analysis.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “Usually, [the specification] is dispositive; it

is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[T]he scope and outer boundary of

claims is set by the patentee’s description of his invention” and, therefore, “claims cannot be of

broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specification.” On Demand Mach. Corp.

v. Ingram Indus., 442 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–1317, 1323

(noting that “the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a

full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim,”

but “expressly reject[ing] the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the

claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment”). The Court must

“us[e] the specification [only] to interpret the meaning of a claim,” however, and must be careful

not to “import[ ] limitations from the specification into the claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

This standard may “be a difficult one to apply in practice,” id., but “[t]he construction that stays

true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention

will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs

Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.1998)).

C. The Prosecution History

After the claims and the specification, “a court should also consider the patent’s

prosecution history, if it is in evidence.” Id. at 1317 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980) (internal

quotation mark omitted). “Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of

how the [United States Patent and Trademark Office] and the inventor understood the patent” and

“can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor

understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of

prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id. (citing Vitronics,

90 F.3d at 1582–83). The prosecution history should be given less weight than the claims and the

specification, however, because “it often lacks clarity . . . and is thus less useful for claim

construction purposes.” Id.

D. Extrinsic Evidence

Courts may also consider extrinsic sources, which “can help educate the court regarding

the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the

art would understand claim terms to mean.” Id. at 1319. “[W]hile extrinsic evidence can shed

useful light on the relevant art,” however, “it is less significant than the intrinsic record in

determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. at 1317 (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). Therefore, extrinsic evidence is “unlikely to result in a reliable

interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id.

at 1319.

E. Indefiniteness

A patent claim is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, when read in light of the

specification and the prosecution history, “fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled

in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., ___ U.S.

___, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). This standard has displaced the prior “insolubly ambiguous”

standard. Id. “The definiteness requirement must take into account the inherent limitations of

language, but at the same time, the patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is

claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them.” Fairfield Indus., Inc. v.

Wireless Seismic, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-2972, 2015 WL 1034275, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015)

(quoting Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. at 2128–29). Patents are presumed to be valid, 35 U.S.C. § 282, and

indefiniteness must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.

P’ship, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011). In addition, “[m]eans-plus-function claim

limitations under § 112 ¶ 6 must satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112 ¶ 2.” EON Corp. IP

Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, No. 2014-1392, 2015 WL 2083860, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May

6, 2015).

V. Construction of Disputed Claims

The parties dispute the meaning of the following terms4 and the Court resolves these

disputes as discussed below:

4 As previously noted, D. 177, the Court rejects WAC’s attempt to have the Court construe

additional terms not previously raised in connection with the original Markman hearing.

A. U.S. Patent No. 6,147,458

No IPR was instituted as to this patent. D. 174 at 8. The ‘458 patent describes a circuit

arrangement for operating a semiconductor light source, as shown in Figure 1 of the ‘458 patent:

A ‘

0

B

‘458, D. 30-2 at 3. The circuit arrangement includes “connection terminals [A and B] for

connecting a control unit [VB], and input filter [I], a converter comprising a control circuit [III],

output terminals [C and D] for connecting the semiconductor light source, an apparatus CM for

removing a leakage current occurring in the control unit in the non-conducting state, and a self-

regulating circuit for deactivating the apparatus CM.” Id. at 2.

1, “input filter means” and “filter means”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“input filter means” Not a means-plus function Means-Plus-Function term.

term.

and Function: Filtering an input.

“a circuit that selectively

“filter means” transmits or rejects a signal in | Structure: Indefinite. A structure

one or more intervals of cannot be determined.

frequencies conducted on the

line input between the control

unit and the converter”

The terms “input filter means,” and “input filter” appear in independent claims 1 and claim

15 of the ‘458 patent. ‘458, D. 30-2 at 7-8. For example, claim 15 provides:

A circuit for operating a semiconductor light source comprising:

input terminals for connection to a control unit,

an input filter coupled to the input terminals,

a converter including a control circuit and having output terminals for

connection to the semiconductor light source in order to energize the

semiconductor light source,

means CM including a controlled semiconductor element for removing a

leakage current occurring in the control unit in the non-conducting state,

said means CM having an input coupled to the input filter and an output

coupled to the converter,

self-regulating deactivating means for deactivating the means CM when the

control unit is in a conductive state, and

detection means for detecting a defective converter or semiconductor light

source connected thereto.

‘458, Id. at 8. The PTAB concluded that no construction of these terms was necessary and,

therefore, did not construe these terms. D. 118-2 at 8. Although WAC initially argued that the

terms are means-plus-function terms and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand

the claim terms “input filter” and “input filter means” to be indefinite because the specification

“never identifies the structure of the input filter means,” D. 40 at 25, its position before the PTAB,

where, it contends, a petitioner cannot argue indefiniteness, D. 179 at 11, was that the term should

be construed as “an electric circuit or device which selectively transmits or rejects input signals in

one or more intervals of frequencies.” D. 174 at 8.

WAC continues now to argue that the term is indefinite since the corresponding structure

cannot be determined. D. 179 at 11. The Court does not agree that the term is indefinite,

particularly as to how the Court constructs it below, since it gives reasonable certainty to those

skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129.

WAC’s proposed construction before the PTAB is close to the construction that Philips has

maintained that both terms (which WAC concedes are synonymous, D. 40 at 25-26; D. 53 (Smith

Decl.) at ¶ 61), should be construed as “a circuit that selectively transmits or rejects a signal in one

or more intervals of frequencies conducted on the line input between the control unit and the

converter.” D. 174 at 8. The Court adopts Philips’ construction. Such construction recognizes

that “input filter” is a standard term of art in the field of power supplies, D. 101-2 at 3 (citing Wiley

Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary definition of “filter”) and this construction

incorporates that definition. Id. Although such definition is extrinsic evidence, it is not

contradicted by any intrinsic regarding the patent, specification or prosecution. Phillips, 415 F.3d

at 1322-23. Philips’ proposed construction also reflects the specification in qualifying the filter to

reflect that it is “conducted on the line input between the control unit and the converter” which

reflects Figure 1. D. 101-2 at 4. Such construction also is not contradicted by specification, as

WAC contends, as the specification only amounts to a “preferable,” but not required embodiment.

D. 101-2 at 5 (citing ‘458 patent).

Accordingly, the Court construes the terms “input filter means” and “filter means” to mean

“a circuit that selectively transmits or rejects a signal in one or more intervals of frequencies

conducted on the line input between the control unit and the converter.”

2. “means CM . . .”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“means CM for Not a means-plus function Means-Plus-Function term.

removing a leakage term.

current occurring in the Function: Removing a leakage

control unit in the No construction necessary, current arising from the control

nonconductive state” unit, including when the control

Or alternatively, unit is in a non-conducting state.

and

“a circuit, including a Structure: the components in the

“means CM for controlled semiconductor dashed box “CM” – a MOSFET

removing a leakage element, that draws leakage arranged in series with a cutout

current occurring in current from the control unit element FS, the gate g of the

the control unit in the when the control unit is off.” MOSFET is connected via a

non-conducting state, resistor R2 to a voltage divider

which means include a circuit [which is comprised of a

controlled series arrangement of a resister

semiconductor element” R1 and a capacitor C1] which is

connected electrically in parallel

and to the input filter means I, the

capacitor C1 is shunted by a

“means CM including a network comprising a zener diode

controlled semiconductor Z1, a capacitor C10 and a resistor

element for removing a R10, and wherein the source s of

leakage current MOSFET is connected, by means

occurring in of a parallel circuit of a resistor

the control unit in the R11 and a zener diode Z11 to the

non-conducting state” negative pole – of the input filter

means I.

The term “means CM for removing a leakage current occurring in the control unit in the

non-conducting state, which means include a controlled semiconductor element” appears in claim

1 of the ‘458 patent and claim 15 recites “means CM including a controlled semiconductor element

for removing a leakage current occurring in the control unit in the non-conducting state.” ‘458, D.

30-2 at 7-8. The parties dispute whether the claim terms are in means-plus-function format. The

PTAB did not construe these terms. D. 118-2 at 8.

As discussed above, when a limitation uses the word “means,” it creates a presumption that

the limitation invokes § 112(f). Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, 161 F.3d at 703. If,

however, “a claim element . . . uses the word ‘means’ but recites no function corresponding to the

means” or “recites sufficient structure or material for performing that function” then the

presumption can be overcome. Allen Eng’g Corp., 299 F.3d at 1347. As such, the “mere use of

the word ‘means’ after a limitation, without more, does not suffice to make that limitation a means-

plus-function limitation.” Id. (citing Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed. Cir.

1996).

Here, Philips argues that the claims identify sufficient structure to perform the recited

function and, therefore, are not in means-plus-function format. D. 35 at 20-21; D. 48 at 15-16.

Specifically, the claims identify “a controlled semiconductor element,” which performs the

function of “removing a leakage current occurring in the control unit in the non-conducting state.”

‘458, D. 30-2 at 7-8. A preferred embodiment discloses MOSFET 1 as the controlled

semiconductor element. Id. at 6 (describing “[t]he means CM, of which the diagram is shown in

more detail in FIG. 2, comprise a MOSFET l as the controlled semiconductor element . . .”).

Indeed, WAC acknowledges that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that

the structure recited in the specification to carry out the function of removing a leakage current

arising from the control unit “was performed by a MOSFET as the controlled semiconductor

element . . . .” D. 40 at 27. Thus, since the claim recites structure sufficient to perform the recited

of “removing a leakage current occurring in the control unit in the non-conducting state” (i.e., “a

controlled semiconductor element”), the term is not a means-plus-function limitation.

To the extent that construction is necessary, Philip’s proposed construction and WAC’s

position before the PTAB are the same: “a circuit, including a controlled semiconductor element,

that draws leakage current from the control unit when the control unit is off.” D. 174 at 8-9.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the “means CM” terms mean “a circuit, including a

controlled semiconductor element, that draws leakage current from the control unit when the

control unit is off.”

3. “removing a leakage current”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“removing a leakage No construction necessary, Compromise Construction:

current”

or alternatively, “drawing leakage current that

flows through a device in the off

“drawing current that flows state and causes unnecessary

through a device in the off power dissipation”

state.”

Claims 1 and 15 recite “removing a leakage current.” ‘458, D. 30-2 at 7-8. The PTAB

concluded that no construction of this term was necessary. D. 118-2 at 8.

Here, Philips points the Court to the specification, which explains that a light may be

controlled by a control unit (a solid-state relay), that conducts or “leaks” a small amount of current

when the control unit is off, or in a “non-conducting state,” and the means CM is intended to draw

or “remove” this current. ‘458, D. 30-2 at 5; see D. 101-2 at 14. As shown in Figure 2 of the

specification, MOSFET 1 is turned on when the control unit is in a non-conductive state, and the

means CM drains the leakage from the control unit through MOSFET 1 to the ground. ’458, id. at

4, 6. Furthermore, Philips notes that an expert engaged by WAC’s counsel in prior litigation

agreed that Philips’ proposed construction “is correct.” D. 48 at 17; see Smith Dep., D. 36-12 at

73. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court adopts Philips’ construction and concludes that the

term ““removing a leakage current” means “drawing current that flows through a device in the off

state.”

4. “self-regulating deactivating means . . .”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“self-regulating Means-Plus-Function term. Means-Plus-Function term.

deactivating means for

deactivating the means Function: “deactivating the Function: Not disputed

CM” means CM.”

Structure: the circuit arrangement

and Structure: “transistor TM and of Figure 2, Block IV, including

zener diode Z60.” Sub-component Blocks VI and

“self-regulating VII.

deactivating means for

deactivating the means Block “VI” has a zener diode

CM when the control Z60 arranged in series with a

unit is in a conductive voltage-dividing network;

state”

Block “VII” has a zener diode

Z70 connected to a control

electrode and to an emitter of a

switch TH,

a collector of the switch TH is

connected to the control electrode

of switch TM, when the switch

TH is rendered conductive, it

generates

a control signal SH for

eliminating the control signal SL;

the zener

diode Z70 is also connected to the

control circuit of the converter III

by a resistance-diode network via

a

connection point G.

Claim 1 recites “self-regulating deactivating means for deactivating the means CM” and

claim 15 recites “self-regulating deactivating means for deactivating the means CM when the

control unit is in a conductive state.” ‘458, D. 30-2 at 7-8. The PTAB did not reach construction

of these terms. D. 118-2 at 8.

The parties agree that these terms are mean-plus-function terms and that the function is

“deactivating the means CM.” D. 35 at 22; D. 40 at 28-29. The specification describes

deactivating means IV in Figure 2, reproduced below, as performing this function. ‘458, D. 30-2

at 6 (explaining that “FIG. 2 also shows deactivating means IV . . . which serve to deactivate the

means CM”).

¢

foie reece Pn ET ee ee an

0 SS

I

!

Rhi—

I Re

| □

1 2

1 ae CIN

io%0 R10 |

IE [p

1 I

| eh ES

[lek py ee

| eR 7) Te Zi |

Zz

| | peeeneetit

1] So tte

| yo 1 iF AL fel |

Ty "H A, J

! I I 1 I

i] Uru JU

| | ly |

| | I 1

I | ly I I

Geo asad Ware oe

□□ b—--a -

it

FIG. 2

Id. Philips offers expert testimony that “the components necessary to perform the recited functions

are transistor TM and zener diode Z60.” D. 37 (Batarseh Decl.) at ¢ 55 (explaining that “[t]o

deactivate the means CM, transistor TM turns on or becomes conducting when zener diode Z60 is

conducting, which brings the voltage on the gate of MOSFET 1 below its operational threshold”

which causes MOSFET | to turn off). WAC’s proposal is consistent with Philips’ construction to

15

the extent that it includes “transistor TM and zener diode Z60,” but WAC identifies corresponding

structure that is outside of the “dashed box IV,” e.g., “resistor R1” and “capacitor C1.”

Philips argues that WAC’s proposed structure errs by identifying structure outside the

dashed box IV and several components inside the dashed box IV, other than transistor TM and

zener diode Z60, that are not necessary for performing the recited function. D. 35 at 23-24; D. 37

(Batarseh Decl.) at ¶ 57. For example, Philips’ expert explains that the resistor R1 and capacitor

C1 form an RC filter bias MOSFET 1, the parallel resistor and capacitor in box VI (located inside

of box IV) serve to prevent the transistor TM from inadvertently turning on or off and the resistor

in series with zener diode Z60 limits current to avoid damage to transistor TM. D. 37 ¶ 57.

Because the Court credits the showing that these components are not necessary to deactivate the

means CM, the Court concludes that the corresponding structure necessary to perform the recited

function are the “transistor TM and zener diode Z60.” See Asyst Techs., Inc., 268 F.3d at 1371

(noting that “[i]t is well established that it is not necessary to claim in a patent every device required

to enable the invention to be used” and explaining that although “[a]n electrical outlet enables a

toaster to work, [] the outlet is not for that reason considered part of the toaster” (citation

omitted)).5 Accordingly, the Court concludes that for the “self-regulating deactivating means for

deactivating the means CM” and “self-regulating deactivating means for deactivating the means

CM when the control unit is in a conductive state,” the undisputed construction of the function is

“deactivating the means CM” and the structure is “transistor TM and zener diode Z60.”

5The parties no longer dispute the construction of “detection means for detecting an incorrect

functioning of the converter or of the semiconductor light source connected thereto” and “detection

means for detecting a defective converter or semiconductor light source connected thereto” in

Claims 1 and 15 of the ‘458 patent. D. 175 at 7.

B. U.S. Patent No. 6,561,690

The ʼ690 patent discloses a lighting system (a “luminaire”) having a housing that defines

an internal space containing at least one LED and an optic means (a “collimator”) for guiding the

light emitted by the LED towards outside of the housing. ‘690, D. 30-4 at 2.

1. “optical means for guiding the light emitted by the LED towards outside

of the housing”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“optical means for Means-Plus-Function term. Means-Plus-Function term.

guiding the light emitted

by the LED towards Function: “guiding the light Function: No longer disputed

outside of the housing” emitted by the LED towards

outside of the housing” Structure: Collimator 4 (Fig. 1)

and 23 (Figs. 2-3), i.e.:

Structure: “collimator with a

symmetrical lateral surface” A full-body collimator formed by

a solid mass of a material which

transmits light and is temperature-

resistant, wherein the collimator

has a symmetrical lateral surface

based on a parabolic or conical

body of revolution, a planar front

surface, and a base surface

geometrically opposed to the front

surface; the base is planar; the

emission characteristic of the

system comprising the LED and

the collimator has a maximum

emission direction which is

perpendicular to the plane defined

by the front surface of the

collimator and has a cavity in its

base for accommodating the LED;

the inside of the cavity is over-

dimensioned and the collimator

rests with its base on the support

on which the LED is mounted.

(Alternatively, the collimator

could be formed by a conical

concave reflector).

The term “optical means for guiding the light emitted by the LED towards outside of the

housing” appears in claim 1 of the ’690 patent. ‘690, D. 30-4 at 8-9. Philips and WAC agree that

“optical means for guiding the light emitted by the LED towards outside of the housing” is in

means-plus-function term and that the function is “guiding the light emitted by the LED towards

outside of the housing.” D. 35 at 28; D. 174 at 12. The PTAB adopted this construction. D. 118-

4 at 8.

As to the structure, the PTAB adopted WAC’s construction of the structure as a

“collimator.” D. 118-4 at 10. Philips contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time

of the invention would understand that the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification

is “a collimator with a symmetrical lateral surface,” see, e.g., D. 38 (Teich Decl.) ¶ 24. Moreover,

Philips argues that WAC identifies exemplary embodiments that are not necessary for “guiding

the light.” Id. ¶¶ 28-29. For example, Philips notes that “a collimator with a symmetrical lateral

surface can guide the light emitted by the LED, irrespective of whether it is temperature resistant,

its base is planar, or it rests with its base on the support.” Id. at ¶ 29.

The specification describes several exemplary collimators as the optical means, each

having in common a symmetrical lateral surface, which is the only structure necessary to perform

the function of “guiding the light emitted by the LED towards outside of the housing.” See, e.g.,

‘690, D. 30-4 at 3-5 (Fig. 1 (collimator 4), Fig. 2 (collimator 23), Fig. 3 (collimator 23); id. at 7

(noting that “[t]he optical means here comprise a collimator 4 formed by a solid mass of a material

which transmits light and is temperature-resistant . . . [t]he optical means are formed by a ‘full-

body’ collimator 4 here, but they may alternatively be formed by, for example, a conical concave

reflector. The collimator 4 has a symmetrical lateral surface 5 based on a parabolic or conical body

of revolution . . . .). However, the Court finds persuasive the PTAB’s reasoning6 that the patent

does not require a narrower construction requiring “any particular collimator shape” where the

patent does not discuss the relative virtues of any shape and there is “no evidence that a different

shape could not perform the agreed-upon function.” D. 118-4 at 9. The Court, therefore, agrees

with WAC that the corresponding structure necessary to perform the recited function is a

“collimator.”

Accordingly, the Court construes the term “optical means for guiding the light emitted by

the LED towards outside of the housing” as a function of “guiding the light emitted by the LED

towards outside of the housing” and the structure as a “collimator.”

C. U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890

As to each of the five disputed terms in the ‘890 Patent, the parties agree that they are all

means-plus-function terms. D. 178 at 8. With the exception of one term noted below (“means

of supplying . . .,” D. 118-5 at 8-9), the PTAB did not construe these terms. See D. 179 at 11.

WAC disputes Philips’ proposed function for the first term “means for sensing,” but agrees that

the function for the other four terms are the recited functions. Id. at 8-9; D. 179-2 at 6-9. The

parties still dispute the corresponding structure for each of the five terms. The Court addresses

these disputes below.

6 Clearlamp, LLC v. LKQ Corp., No. 12-cv-2533, 2016 WL 4734389, at *5 n.7 (N.D. Ill.

Mar. 18, 2016) (collecting cases where district courts considered a PTAB inter partes review

rulings as persuasive authority).

1. “means for sensing current to the LED array, said current sensing means

generating a sensed current signal”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“means for sensing Means-Plus-Function term. Means-Plus-Function term.

current to the LED array,

said current sensing Function: “sensing current to Function: “originating an electric

means generating a the LED array and generating signal that corresponds to the

sensed current signal” a sensed current signal.” level of sensed electrical current”

Structure: “current sensor 60; Structure: Indefinite. A structure

resistor R1A1, R1A2, and/or cannot be determined.

R1A3 in Figure 2A; or

resistor R1B1, R1B2, and/or

R1B3 in Figure 2C.”

The parties at least initially agreed that the function was, Philips still proposes, “sensing

current to the LED array and generating a sensed current signal.” D. 35 at 25-26. The Court does

not agree with WAC that its alternative construction is required as the function would be

understood as requiring an electrical signal that corresponds to the level of sensed electrical

current. D. 52 at 19; D. 53 (Smith Aff.) at ¶ 97. The Court, therefore, adopts Philips’ construction

of the function, particularly where WAC’s proposed construction does not appear supported by

the language in the claim. D. 48 at 20. As to the structure, the Court does not agree with WAC

that it is indefinite. D. 52 at 19. The Court concludes that the structure can be constructed from

the claim, D. 37 (Batarseh Decl.) at ¶¶ 71-72, and, therefore, is not indefinite. Moreover, Philips’

construction comports with the language in the claim. Accordingly, the Court adopts Philips’

construction of the structure.

2. “means for generating a reference signal”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“means for generating a Means-Plus-Function term. Means-Plus-Function term.

reference signal”

Function: “generating a Function: Not disputed

reference signal.”

Structure: Indefinite. A structure

Structure: “reference current cannot be determined.

source 62; or the internal

reference in PWM control IC

118 or 134.”

As to the parties’ dispute about the structure, the Court does not agree with WAC that it is

indefinite. The Court does not agree with its’ contention that the specification is incomplete as to

describing the structure. D. 52 at 19. To the contrary, the specification notes that the reference

current source 62 or internal reference in the PWM control IC 134 performs the function. D. 35

at 26-27. That is, the structure can be construed. D. 37 (Batarseh Decl.) at ¶¶ 74-75. Accordingly,

the Court adopts Philips’ construction of the structure.

3. “means for comparing” and “means for comparing the sensed current

signal to the reference current signal” and “means for comparing the sensed

current signal to the reference signal, said comparing means generating a

feedback signal”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“means for comparing” Means-Plus-Function term. Means-Plus-Function term.

and Function: “comparing the Function: Not disputed

sensed current signal to the

“means for comparing reference signal and Structure: A proportional type op-

the sensed current signal generating a feedback signal.” amp control circuit which

to the reference current generates a current error.

signal” Structure: “comparator 58; or

the internal op-amp in PWM

and control IC 118 or 134.”

“means for comparing

the sensed current signal

to the reference signal,

said comparing means

generating a feedback

signal”

As to this term, the parties have competing constructions of the structure. Both include

“op-amp” as part of the structure, D. 35 at 27-28; D. 40 at 26-17, but WAC’s construction does

not sufficiently explain why “generates a current error” is required to perform the function.

Compare D. 52 at 19 with D. 48 at 14-15. Accordingly, the Court adopts Philips’ construction of

the structure.

4. “means for modulating pulse width responsive to the feedback signal, said

pulse width modulating means generating a drive signal”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“means for modulating Means-Plus-Function term. Means-Plus-Function term.

pulse width responsive

to Function: “modulating a pulse Function: Not disputed

the feedback signal, said width responsive to the

pulse width modulating feedback signal and Structure: An integrated

means generating a drive generating a drive signal.” controller that produces a high

signal” frequency periodic drive signal of

Structure: “pulse width varying

modulation (PWM) control IC pulse width having a square wave

56; PWM control IC 118; or oscillating between 0 and 12 volts

PWM control IC 134.” with a frequency of 20 kHz, 0 and

16 volts with a frequency of 200

to 300 Hertz, or between 0 and

600 mA with a frequency of 200

to 300 Hz.

The parties also have competing constructions of this structure. As to WAC’s construction,

the Court agrees with Philips that WAC’s construction imports additional limitations from an

embodiment in the specification. D. 35 at 29. That is, the recited function does not require, for

example, “having a square wave oscillating between 0 and 12 volts . . .,” but are merely exemplary

operating modes. Accordingly, the Court adopts Philips’ construction of the structure as “pulse

width modulation (PWM) control IC 56; PWM control IC 118; or PWM control IC 134.”

5. “means for supplying power responsive to the drive signal, said power

supplying means supplying current to the LED array”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“means for supplying Means-Plus-Function term. Means-Plus-Function term.

power responsive to the

drive signal, said power Function: “supplying power Function: Not disputed

supplying means responsive to the drive signal

supplying current to the and supplying current to the Structure: A buckboost, boost,

LED array” LED array.” buck, or flyback power supply;

with a transistor Q1A, inductor

Structure: “a buckboost, L1A, and diode D4A; or transistor

boost, buck, or flyback power Q1B, inductor L1B, and diode

supply.” D4B.

As the parties agree, the PTAB agreed that this term is in the means plus function format.

D. 118-5 at 8. The parties agree that the function is “supplying power responsive to the drive

signal and supplying current to the LED array.” The PTAB did not adopt either party’s

construction as to the structure, and instead construed it as “a buckboost, boost, buck, or flyback

power supply and its equivalent power supplies that regulate current (as opposed to regulating

voltage).” Id. The Court agrees that this construction is more consistent with the specification’s

disclosure of the structure and the claim language and thereby adopts this construction as well.

D. U.S. Patent No. 6,788,011

The ’011 concerns color mixing of LED lights. See ‘011, D. 30-6 at 12. The patent notes

that “[i]t is well known that combining the projected light of one color with the projected light of

another color will result in the creation of a third color,” and that “the three most commonly used

primary colors—red, blue and green—can be combined in different proportions to generate almost

any color in the visible spectrum.” Id. The ’011 patent “takes advantage of these effects by

combining the projected light from at least two light emitting diodes (LEDs) of different primary

colors.” Id. There were no IPR proceeding as to this patent. D. 174 at 18.

1. “second LED”

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“second LED” No construction necessary, A light emitting diode separate

and distinct from the first LED.

or alternatively,

“a second light emitting

diode.”

The term “second LED” appears in claims 93, 122, 127, and 130 of the ’011 patent.

‘011, D. 30-6 at 20-23. For example, claim 130 provides:

An illumination apparatus, comprising:

at least one first LED adapted to output at least first radiation having a first

spectrum;

at least one second LED adapted to output second radiation having a second

spectrum different than the first spectrum; and

at least one controller coupled to the at least one first LED and the at least

one second LED and configured to respond to at least one signal formatted

at least in part using a DMX protocol, the at least one signal including

lighting information based at least in part on user operation of at least one

user interface in communication with the at least one controller, the at least

one controller further configured to independently control at least a first

intensity of the first radiation and a second intensity of the second radiation

in response to the lighting information.

Id. at 23.

The parties agree that “first LED” should be construed to mean “a first light emitting

diode.” D. 35 at 35; D. 40 at 36. Similarly, here, Philips’ proposed construction is “a second light

emitting diode.” D.35 at 35. Philips argues that the “separate and distinct” language proposed by

WAC should be rejected because it could be interpreted as narrowing the scope of the claims to

exclude embodiments where the first and second LEDs are physically or electrically connected,

inconsistent with the 7011 patent. D. 35 at 36. In other words, Philips argues that “second LED”

should include “separate and distinct” LEDs as well as LEDS that are physically and electronically

connected. Id. at 37. In support, Philips points the Court to Figure 1 and Figure 4 of the ‘011

patent, shown below:

100

| fue “4 a . as

Fk as a J 7 CO oD a \

Fig. 1 Fig. 4

Id. at 36; see ‘011, D. 30-6 at 5, 9. Figure 1 discloses three LEDs of different colors (120, 140,

and 160) that are electrically connected to one another, and Figure 4 shows LEDs of different

colors (120, 140 and 160) physically grouped together. ‘011, D. 30-6 at 5, 9. Philips argues that

WAC’s proposed construction could improperly exclude these embodiments. D. 35 at 37 (citing

MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting

limitations on claims that excluded embodiments disclosed in the specification)). WAC contends

that its construction “does not read out LEDs that may be connected to one another” and that the

figures shown above depict LEDs that are separate and distinct from each other. D. 52 at 21. To

25

that end, Philips notes that it “could agree with [WAC’s] construction,” but argues that WAC is

attempting to exclude “second LEDs” that are in the same package as the first LED. Tr. 2:11-12.

The parties’ dispute, therefore, centers on whether subcomponents of the LED package could meet

the “second LED” limitation.

WAC argues that the “second LED” must be “separate and distinct” because claims 122

and 130 require that the intensity associated with each LED be independently controlled, which

WAC argues cannot be accomplished on the subcomponent level. As Philips points out, however,

Figure 1 depicts a number of electrical current lines (128, 148 and 168), which are independently

controlled the LEDs. Tr. 2:26. Accordingly, the Court will not reinterpret the claim language

where it is sufficiently clear and where the specification discloses embodiments electronically and

physically grouped together. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that no

construction is necessary for the term “second LED.”

E. U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399 and 7,352,138

The ʼ399 patent and the related ’138 patent describe electronic circuitry for powering LEDs

through conventional alternating current dimmer switches. D. 35 at 43. The ’399 and ’138 patents

disclose methods and apparatus able to control the intensity of LEDs when supplied with the types

of signals that come from conventional dimmer switches. Id. at 44.

1. signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage

Term Philips’ Proposed WAC’s Proposed Construction

Construction

“signals other than a No construction necessary, Indefinite. A construction is not

standard A.C. line possible or, alternatively,

voltage” or alternatively,

“[A.C. power source that

“signals other than a single provides] more than 1 signal but

sinusoidal wave at a fixed does not provide a standard A.C.

line voltage”

frequency and a fixed

amplitude”

The term “signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage” appears in claims 7, 17, and 34

of the ‘399 patent and claim 1 of the ‘138 patent. ‘399, D. 30-7 at 28-29; ‘138, D. 30-8 at 27-28.

For example, claim 7 of the ‘399 patent provides, in part:

An illumination apparatus comprising:

at least one LED; and

at least one controller coupled to the at least one LED and configured to

receive a power-related signal from an alternating current (A.C.) power

source that provides signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage, the at

least one controller further configured to provide power to the at least one

LED based on the power-related signal . . . .

‘399, D. 30-7 at 28.

Although WAC concedes that the specification expressly uses the term “signals other than

a standard A.C. line voltage,” it argues that in both instances it is used in a “conclusory statement

absent of any explanation, description or examples” and that the term is, therefore, “incapable of

construction.” D. 40 at 40. Id. WAC further argues that since the ‘138 Patent is a continuation of

the ‘399 patent, the term should be construed identically across the patents as indefinite. Id.

“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification

delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those

skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124. “The definiteness

requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is

unattainable.” Id. at 2129. Philips argues that the specification discloses a standard A.C. line

voltage as a single sinusoidal wave at a fixed frequency and a fixed amplitude. D. 35 at 44; D. 48

at 27. Indeed, the specification identifies two common standard A.C. line voltages, including “120

Volts RMS at 60 Hz” (common in the United States) and “220 Volts RMS at 50 Hz” (common in

Europe). ‘399, D. 30-7 at 16; see D. 37 (Batarseh Decl.) at ¶ 95 (explaining that “[t]hese standard

A.C. line voltages are transmitted in the form of a single sinusoidal wave and at a fixed frequency

. . . [t]herefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have

understood that ‘signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage’ referred to signals other than ‘a

single sinusoidal wave at a fixed frequency’”). The term “signals other than a standard A.C. line

voltage,” then, encompasses signals that are not “a standard A.C. line voltage.” Although this

construction is broad, the Court will not find it to be indefinite.

Although WAC still appears to press the indefiniteness argument, D. 179-2 at 10; D. 179

at 7 n. 7, it alternatively argues (in light of the PTAB’s construction of this term), that this term, if

not indefinite, should be construed as “[A.C. power source that provides] more than one signal but

does not provide a standard A.C. line voltage.” D. 179-2 at 10.

The PTAB concluded that this term did not need construction and that the “other than a

standard A.C. line voltage” is not limited to A.C. signals. D. 118-6 at 11; D. 118-7 at 11-12. The

Court finds this analysis persuasive and, accordingly, adopts the same position.

VI. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the disputed claim terms are construed as follows:

1. the terms “input filter means” and “filter means” mean “a circuit that

selectively transmits or rejects a signal in one or more intervals of frequencies

conducted on the line input between the control unit and the converter”;

2. the term “means CM” means “a circuit, including a controlled

semiconductor element, that draws leakage current from the control unit when the

control unit is off”;

3. the term ““removing a leakage current” means “drawing current that flows

through a device in the off state”;

4. the terms “self-regulating deactivating means for deactivating the means

CM” and “self-regulating deactivating means for deactivating the means CM when

the control unit is in a conductive state,” mean “deactivating the means CM” for

function and the structure is “transistor TM and zener diode Z60”;

5. the term “optical means for guiding the light emitted by the LED towards

outside of the housing” means the function of “guiding the light emitted by the LED

towards outside of the housing” and the structure as a “collimator”;

6. the term “means for sensing. . .” means for function, “sensing current to the

LED array and generating a sensed current signal” and for structure, means “current

sensor 60; resistor RiA1, R1A2 and/or R1A3 in Figure 2A; or resistor R1B1, R1B2,

and/or R1B3 in Figure 2C”;

7. the term “means for generating . . .” means for function, “generating a

reference signal,” and for structure, means “reference current source 62; or the

internal reference in PWM control IC 118 or 134”;

8. the term “means for comparing . . .” means for function, “comparing the

sensed current signal to the reference signal and generating a feedback signal,” and

for structure, means “comparator 58; or the internal op-amp in PWM control IC

118 or 134”;

9. the term “means for modulating . . .” means, as to function, “modulating a

pulse width responsive to the feedback signal and generating a drive signal” and

for structure, means “pulse width modulation (PWM) control IC 56; PWM control

IC 118; or PWM control IC 134”;

10. the term “means for supplying . . .” means, as to function, “supplying power

responsive to the drive signal and supplying current to the LED array” and, as to

structure, means “a buckboost, boost, buck or flyback power supply and its

equivalent power supplies that regulate current (as opposed to regulating voltage)”;

11. No construction is necessary for the term “second LED”; and

12. No construction is necessary for the term “signals other than a standard A.C.

line voltage.”

So Ordered.

/s/ Denise J. Casper

United States District Judge