Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01853/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01853-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYWEE GROUP LTD,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01853-HSG 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

The parties in this patent infringement action seek construction of three claim terms found 

in United States Patent Nos. 8,441,438 (“the ’438 Patent”) and 8,552,978 (“the ’978 Patent”). 

This order follows claim construction briefing, a technology tutorial, and a claim construction 

hearing.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Claim construction is a question of law to be determined by the Court. See Markman v. 

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “The purpose of claim 

construction is to determine the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.” 

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Generally, claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning—i.e., the 

meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the 

invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). There are 

only two circumstances where a claim is not entitled to its plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a 

patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows 

the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony 

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 12
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

When construing claim terms, the Federal Circuit emphasizes the importance of intrinsic 

evidence: the language of the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. The claim language can “provide substantial guidance as to the 

meaning of particular claim terms,” both through the context in which the claim terms are used 

and by considering other claims in the same patent. Id. at 1314. The specification is likewise a 

crucial source of information. Although it is improper to read limitations from the specification 

into the claims, the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” 

Id. at 1315 (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. 

Usually, it is dispositive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Merck & Co. v. Teva 

Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[C]laims must be construed so as to be 

consistent with the specification.”).

Despite the importance of intrinsic evidence, courts may also consider extrinsic evidence—

technical dictionaries, learned treatises, expert and inventor testimony, and the like—to help 

construe the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–18. For example, dictionaries may reveal what 

the ordinary and customary meaning of a term would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the 

art at the time of the invention. Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystemen B.V. v. Stopaq Amcorr 

Inc., 744 F.3d 715, 722 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Terms generally carry their ordinary and customary 

meaning in the relevant field at the relevant time, as shown by reliable sources such as 

dictionaries, but they always must be understood in the context of the whole document—in 

particular, the specification (along with the prosecution history, if pertinent).”). Extrinsic evidence 

is, however, “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning 

of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Agreed Terms

The parties have agreed to the construction of the following terms (see Dkt. Nos. 47, 61):

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 12
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Claim Term Asserted Claims Agreed Claim Construction

measured state includes a 

measurement of said second signal 

set and a predicted measurement 

obtained based on the first signal 

set without using any derivatives 

of the first signal set

’438 Patent claim 1 at least two axial accelerations, 

including a measurement of the 

second signal set and a 

predicted measurement 

obtained based on the first 

signal set without using any 

derivatives of the first signal set

second computing processor ’978 Patent claim 1 a computing processor 

physically distinct from but 

interoperable with the first 

computing processor

measured magnetisms ’978 Patent claims 1, 10 magnetisms measured by the 

magnetometer

predicted magnetism ’978 Patent claims 1, 10 plain and ordinary meaning

quaternion ’978 Patent claims 3, 12 no construction needed

In light of the parties’ agreement on the proper construction of these terms, the Court 

adopts the parties’ constructions.

B. Disputed Terms

1. ’438 Patent

The ’438 Patent, titled “3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement 

Thereof,” claims a device and method that measures, calculates, and outputs the movement of the 

device so that those movements can be translated to a 2D image screen. In the words of the 

patentee:

The 3D pointing device comprises an accelerometer to measure or 

detect axial accelerations Ax, Az, Ay and a rotation sensor to 

measure or detect angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz such that resulting 

deviation including resultant angles comprising yaw, pitch and roll 

angles in a spatial pointer frame of the 3D pointing device subject to 

movements and rotations in dynamic environments may be obtained 

and such that said resulting deviation including said resultant angles 

may be obtained and outputted in an absolute manner reflecting or 

associating with the actual movements and rotations of the 3D 

pointer device of the present invention in said spatial pointer 

reference frame. . . . [T]he present invention provides an enhanced 

comparison method to eliminate the accumulated errors as well as 

noises over time associated with signals generated by a combination 

of motion sensors, including . . . accelerometers . . . and . . . 

gyroscopes.

’438 Patent at 4:8-25.

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 12
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Independent claim 1 describes:

1. A three-dimensional (3D) pointing device subject to movements 

and rotations in dynamic environments, comprising:

a housing associated with said movements and rotations of 

the 3D pointing device in a spatial pointer reference frame;

a printed circuit board (PCB) enclosed by the housing;

a six-axis motion sensor module attached to the PCB, 

comprising a rotation sensor for detecting and generating a 

first signal set comprising angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz 

associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D 

pointing device in the spatial pointer reference frame, an 

accelerometer for detecting and generating a second signal 

set comprising axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az associated 

with said movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device 

in the spatial pointer reference frame; and 

a processing and transmitting module, comprising a data 

transmitting unit electrically connected to the six-axis motion 

sensor module for transmitting said first and second signal 

sets thereof and a computing processor for receiving and 

calculating said first and second signal sets from the data 

transmitting unit, communicating with the six-axis motion 

sensor module to calculate a resulting deviation comprising 

resultant angles in said spatial pointer reference frame by 

utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal set with 

the second signal set whereby said resultant angles in the 

spatial pointer reference frame of the resulting deviation of 

the six-axis motion sensor module of the 3D pointing device 

are obtained under said dynamic environments, wherein the 

comparison utilized by the processing and transmitting 

module further comprises an update program to obtain an 

updated state based on a previous state associated with said 

first signal set and a measured state associated with said 

second signal set; wherein the measured state includes a 

measurement of said second signal set and a predicted 

measurement obtained based on the first signal set without 

using any derivatives of the first signal set.

The parties dispute the meaning of the two bolded claim phrases in claim 1 above.

i. “receiving and calculating said first and second signal sets from the data 

transmitting unit”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendant’s Proposed Construction

receiving the first and second signal 

sets from the data transmitting unit 

and using the first and second signal 

sets for calculation

indefinite

Plaintiff argues that its construction “is consistent with the patent’s specification,” and 

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 4 of 12
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

merely “reorganizes the language of the claims to provide additional clarity for the term.” Dkt. 

No. 57 (“Op’g Br.”) at 9. Plaintiff contends that “[w]ithin the claim itself, ‘receiving’ is defined 

as the communication with the motion sensors, and ‘calculating’ is defined as the calculation of a 

resulting deviation using a comparison of the signals.” Id. at 9-10. 

But the claim does not so clearly define those words. In fact, read in conjunction with the 

specification, the claim appears to describe two separate calculations: the calculation of the first 

and second signal sets, and the calculation of the resulting deviation. See ’438 Patent at 8:24-29 

(“The computing processor 348 receives and calculates the first and second signal sets from the 

data transmitting unit 346. The computing processor 348 further communicates with the six-axis 

motion sensor module 302 to calculate the resulting deviation of the 3D pointing device . . . .”) 

(italic emphases added). Plaintiff’s construction collapses these two ostensibly separate 

calculations into one. Put together, the claim would read: 

a computing processor for receiving the first and second signal sets 

from the data transmitting unit and using the first and second signal 

sets for calculation, communicating with the six-axis motion sensor 

module to calculate a resulting deviation . . . by utilizing a 

comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal set.

As a result, the calculation of the first and second signal sets disappears, and instead those signal 

sets are only “us[ed] . . . for calculation” of the resulting deviation. The Court finds that, contrary 

to Plaintiff’s assertion, such a construction would not be consistent with “the context of the 

specification,” which describes two separate calculations. Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS 

Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s construction is not necessary to provide clarity regarding the use 

of the first and second signal sets to calculate the resulting deviation, as the claim language itself 

serves this function by teaching that the resulting deviation is calculated “by utilizing a 

comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal set.” ’438 Patent at 19:10-14.1 

 

1 At the claim construction hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel seemed to acknowledge this point. See 

Dkt. No. 69 (“Hr’g Tr.”) at 56:4-7 (“[W]e would take a plain and ordinary meaning. It doesn’t 

require a construction. We just provide a construction to, kind of, help demonstrate that this term 

is not indefinite.”).

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 5 of 12
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Finally, the Court cannot “reorganize the language of the claims” to give terms meanings 

that are not supported by the specification or the claim language itself. See Chef Am., Inc. v. 

Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“This court, however, repeatedly and 

consistently has recognized that courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or 

to sustain their validity. Even a nonsensical result does not require the court to redraft the claims 

of the . . . patent.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare 

Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 782 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[W]e do not redraft claims to contradict their plain 

language in order to avoid a nonsensical result.”).2

Defendant argues that the claim phrase is indefinite because it “does not make sense” for 

the computing processor to calculate the signal sets. Dkt. No. 59 (“Resp. Br.”) at 7. The Supreme 

Court recently clarified the standard courts must use to determine whether patent claims are 

invalid for indefiniteness under § 112 of the Patent Act. In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, 

Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Supreme Court held “that 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.” 134 

S. Ct. at 2124. That definiteness standard “mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute 

precision is unattainable.” Id. at 2129. The Federal Circuit has since interpreted the Nautilus

holding to require that the intrinsic evidence “provide objective boundaries” on the scope of the 

claim meaning. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (2014).

The Court finds that this claim phrase is not indefinite. The ’438 Patent sufficiently 

teaches the scope of the first and second signal sets such that it is reasonably certain that a person 

skilled in the art would understand how such signal sets could be “calculated” according to the 

ordinary meaning of that word. The Nautilus test “mandates clarity,” not perfect logic.3 The 

 

2 Moreover, the Court does not give any weight to Plaintiff’s expert’s conclusory testimony that “a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term . . . as ‘receiving the first and second 

signal sets from the data transmitting unit and using the first and second signal sets for 

calculation.’” Dkt. No. 57-6 (“Ahamed Decl.”) at ¶ 23. Nor does the Court find it persuasive that 

the patent examiner “readily understood the term when analyzing it against the alleged prior art 

reference.” Op’g Br. at 13.

3 Defendant’s citation to Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC, No. 12-cv-219-RHB, 2013 WL 

1729574 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2013), does not persuasively support its position. In Planet Bingo, 

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 6 of 12
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

question of whether or not Defendant’s allegedly infringing “computing processor” is actually 

capable of calculating signal sets is better left to the infringement analysis. 

The Court is required to construe claim terms only when the parties raise an “actual dispute

regarding the proper scope of the[] claims.” See O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1360. Given the Court’s 

finding that this claim phrase is not indefinite, there is no “actual dispute” regarding the meaning 

of the claim phrase. See Hr’g Tr. at 56:5-6 (“It doesn’t require a construction.”), 79:19-22 (“It 

says you have to calculate those signal sets. So that processor has to both receive and calculate the 

first and second signal sets. That would be my fallback.”). Moreover, the claim phrase uses 

ordinary words in ordinary ways that are readily comprehensible to a jury. See Chef Am., 358 

F.3d at 1373 (“These are ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and 

unquestionable. . . . They mean exactly what they say.”). Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s 

proposed construction, rejects Defendant’s indefiniteness argument, and finds that no construction 

of this claim phrase is necessary.

ii. “utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal set with the second 

signal set”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendant’s Proposed Construction

calculating using the first signal set 

and the second signal set

indefinite

Defendant does not appear to dispute that the ’438 Patent properly discloses the 

comparison of two “orientations” or “states,” but argues that such comparisons would be different 

from the comparison of “signal sets” described in claim 10. And because Defendant further 

argues that it “does not make mathematical or physical sense to ‘compare’ these two quantities,” 

Defendant contends that the claim phrase is indefinite. Resp. Br. at 9. 

But Defendant’s cited authority is not persuasive. In Union Pacific Resources Co. v. 

Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the Court found that the term 

“comparing” was indefinite because “the precise meaning of the term . . . is not explained in the 

 

the court rested its finding of indefiniteness on the fact that “[t]he plain language of the 

independent claims is incompatible with the plain language of the dependent claims.” Id. at *7. 

Here, Defendant does not argue that the dependent claims are inconsistent or fundamentally 

incompatible with the independent claims; as a result, Planet Bingo is inapposite.

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 7 of 12
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

written description” and the patent “does not define the means to ‘compare’ the two sets of 

characterizing information.” 236 F.3d at 692. In Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co., 

No. 12-cv-799, 2014 WL 3976371 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2014), the Court based its finding of 

indefiniteness on the fact that “calculating a dot product where one of the inputs is a single number 

is mathematically impossible,” since “[i]t is . . . undisputed that calculating a dot product requires 

a sequence of numbers.” 2014 WL 3976371, at *5. Here, the patentee explicitly defined the term 

“comparison” in the specification. See ’438 Patent at 2:27-32 (“The term of ‘comparison’ of the 

present invention may generally refer to the calculating and obtaining of the actual deviation 

angles of the 3D pointing device 110 with respect to the first reference frame or spatial pointing 

frame XpYpZp utilizing signals generated by motion sensors while reducing or eliminating noises 

associated with said motion sensors[.]”); Op’g Br. at 14 (agreeing that this section of the 

specification explicitly defines the term “comparison”). Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that 

it is “mathematically impossible” to compare the signal sets. Defendant’s position depends on an 

overly rigid construction of the term “signal sets” as “raw data from the signal sets.” That two 

measurements are made using different units does not make it “mathematically impossible” to 

compare those measurements: Celsius may be converted to Fahrenheit, kilometers may be 

converted to miles, and grams may be converted to cups. So long as the ’438 Patent informs a 

person having ordinary skill in the art “with reasonable certainty” how to compare the signal sets, 

the claim term is not indefinite. And the Patent does so by explicitly defining “comparison” as the 

calculation of “deviation angles,” which calculation is described in further detail in the 

specification. See, e.g., ’438 Patent 10:53-15:7. The specification also describes how those 

deviation angles may be used to compare the signal sets—for example, through the use of 

quaternions. See, e.g., id. 11:48-12:11.

Accordingly, the Court finds that this claim phrase is not indefinite. But Plaintiff’s 

construction is not adequate, since it does not incorporate or even reference the specific definition 

of “comparison” contained in the specification and does not clarify the scope of the overall claim 

when combined with the rest of claim 1’s language. Therefore, the Court construes this claim 

phrase as “using the calculation of actual deviation angles to compare the first signal set with the 

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 8 of 12
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

second signal set,” which clarifies the scope of the phrase and claim 1 as a whole using the 

specification’s explicit definition of “comparison.”

2. ’978 Patent

The ’978 Patent discloses a similar device and method as the ’438 Patent, except the ’978 

Patent invention uses a third motion sensor, a magnetometer, in addition to the accelerometer and 

gyroscope disclosed by the ’438 Patent. In addition, the ’978 Patent discloses two computing 

processors as opposed to the single computing processor disclosed in the ’438 Patent.

Independent claim 1 describes:

1. A 3D pointing device, comprising:

an orientation sensor, generating an orientation output associated 

with an orientation of the 3D pointing device associated with 

three coordinate axes of a global reference frame associated with 

Earth;

a rotation sensor, generating a rotation output associated with a 

rotation of the 3D pointing device associated with three 

coordinate axes of a spatial reference frame associated with the 

3D pointing device; and 

a first computing processor, using the orientation output and 

the rotation output to generate a transformed output 

associated with a fixed reference frame associated with a 

display device;

wherein the orientation sensor comprises:

an accelerometer, generating a first signal set comprising axial 

accelerations associated with movements and rotations of the 3D 

pointing device in the spatial reference frame;

a magnetometer, generating a second signal set associated with 

Earth’s magnetism; and

a second computing processor, generating the orientation output 

based on the first signal set, the second signal set and the 

rotation output or based on the first signal set and the second 

signal set;

wherein the rotation sensor, the accelerometer, and the 

magnetometer forming a nine-axis motion sensor module; the 

3D pointing device is configured for obtaining one or more 

resultant deviation including a plurality of deviation angles using 

a plurality of measured magnetisms Mx, My, Mz and a plurality 

of predicted magnetism Mx’, My’ and Mz’.

The parties dispute the meaning of the bolded claim phrase in claim 1 above. The same 

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 9 of 12
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claim phrase also appears in independent claim 10.

iii. “using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a 

transformed output associated with a fixed reference frame associated with 

a display device”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendant’s Proposed Construction

using the orientation output and the 

rotation output to generate an output, 

which is associated with movements and 

rotations of the 3D pointing device and a 

2-dimensional display plane parallel to or 

the same as a display screen

transforming the rotation output using 

the orientation output to generate a twodimensional movement in a plane that is 

parallel to the screen of a display device 

and does not move or rotate

The parties first dispute whether the claim phrase requires that the “rotation output,” in 

particular, be transformed. Defendant contends that the specification’s description of the sub-steps 

of a disclosed embodiment “define[s] how to calculate the transformed output,” and that those 

sub-steps “calculate[] the transformed output based on the transformed rotation.” Resp. Br. at 15.

Defendant’s construction improperly imports a limitation from a preferred embodiment 

and three dependent claims into the independent claim. See Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen

Kingdomway Grp. Co., 2015 WL 3613644, at *6 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2015) (“[I]t would be 

improper to import a claim limitation from a dependent claim into an independent claim.”). The 

plain language of the independent claim requires only that the rotation output be “used” to 

generate the transformed output, whereas certain dependent claims and a preferred embodiment 

add the limitation that a “transformed rotation” be generated before the transformed output may be 

generated. See ’978 Patent at 33:11-17 & claims 5 (“The 3D pointing device of claim 1, wherein 

the first computing processor . . . generates a transformed rotation associated with the fixed 

reference frame . . . , and generates the transformed output based on the transformed rotation.”), 8, 

9. The Court declines to graft this limitation onto the independent claim.

Plaintiff’s construction, on the other hand, omits entirely the clear requirement that the 

generated output be “transformed.” The Court therefore also declines to adopt Plaintiff’s proposed 

construction.

The Court sees no need to depart from the plain meaning of the readily understandable 

words used in the first part of this claim phrase (“using the orientation output and the rotation 

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 10 of 12
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

output to generate a transformed output”).4 Since the parties do not dispute the scope of the 

particular words used and the claim as written is readily comprehensible, the Court finds that no 

construction is required.

As for the latter part of the claim phrase, Defendant argues that the specification 

consistently uses the term “fixed” in relation to “a non-moving display separate from the 3D 

pointing device.” Resp. Br. at 16. But Defendant’s proposed construction conflates the “display 

device” and the “reference frame,” and it excludes certain disclosed embodiments. What is 

“fixed” is the “reference frame,” not the display device itself. The reference frame is a spatial 

plane rather than a physical object. Thus, the display device may move, but the reference frame 

by which the device’s movements are translated remains fixed. Furthermore, the specification 

describes embodiments in which the display device is integrated into the same hardware as the 

motion sensor device. See ‘978 Patent at 5:6-8 (disclosing “a display frame either external to the 

device of the present invention or integrated therein”), 13:13-16 (“[T]he above-mentioned display 

reference frame associated with a display may need not to be [sic] external to the spatial reference 

frame in terms of the hardware configuration of the present invention.”), 13:21-24 (“[I]n one 

embodiment, . . . [a] built-in display 682 may too be integrated on the housing 630.”). As a logical 

consequence, if they are attached, the display device must be capable of moving and rotating along 

with the motion sensor device. 

In line with the above analysis, the Court construes this claim phrase as “using the 

orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output that corresponds to a 

two-dimensional movement in a plane that is parallel to the screen of a display device.”

 

4 At the claim construction hearing, both parties’ counsel seemed to agree with the Court’s 

position on this issue. See Hr’g Tr. at 85:4-6 (“We don’t need to construe. We can use the exact 

language of the claim. We think it’s sufficient enough with the claim language itself.”), 90:18-20 

(“They removed ‘transformation.’ If they want [to] put it back in, then I don’t think we would 

have an objection to putting it back in, because it’s right.”).

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 11 of 12
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. CONCLUSION

The Court construes the disputed terms as follows:

Term Asserted Claims Construction

receiving and calculating said 

first and second signal sets 

from the data transmitting unit

’438 Patent claim 1 no construction necessary

utilizing a comparison to 

compare the first signal set 

with the second signal set

’438 Patent claim 1 using the calculation of actual 

deviation angles to compare 

the first signal set with the 

second signal set

using the orientation output 

and the rotation output to 

generate a transformed output 

associated with a fixed 

reference frame associated 

with a display device

’978 Patent claims 1 and 10 using the orientation output 

and the rotation output to 

generate a transformed output 

that corresponds to a twodimensional movement in a 

plane that is parallel to the 

screen of a display device

A case management conference will be held on September 29, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in 

Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. The parties shall file an 

updated joint case management statement by September 22, 2015, and should be prepared to 

discuss the remainder of the case schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-01853-HSG Document 70 Filed 09/09/15 Page 12 of 12