Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05194/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05194-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SENSOR ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOLB, INC. and QUANTUM EGG, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM 

TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 

9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 

9,660,133; AND 9,042,420

Plaintiff Sensor Electronic Technology, Inc. brings this action for patent infringement 

against Defendants Bolb, Inc. and Quantum Egg, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). The parties 

seek construction of ten claim terms in the following five patents that Plaintiff accuses Defendants 

of infringing: (1) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,801,965 (“the ’965 Patent”); (2) 9,966,496 (“the ’496 

Patent”); (3) 8,633,468 (“the ’468 Patent”); (4) 9,660,133 (“the ’133 Patent”); and (5) 9,042,420 

(“the ’420 Patent”) (collectively, the “claim construction Patents”). Of note, Plaintiff also accuses 

Defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,552,562 (“the ’562 Patent”). However, the parties do 

not seek claim construction for the ’562 Patent.

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, the record in this case, and 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 1 of 81
2

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

the parties’ arguments at the July 25, 2019 claim construction hearing, the Court construes the 

claim terms in the ’965 Patent, the ’496 Patent, the ’468 Patent, the ’133 Patent, and the ’420 

Patent as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

Background

The ’965 Patent is titled “Ultraviolet Disinfection Case.” It was filed on April 14, 2015,

and issued on October 31, 2017.

The ’496 Patent is titled “Light Emitting Heterostructure with Partially Relaxed 

Semiconductor Layer.” It was filed on April 12, 2016, and issued on May 8, 2018.

The ’468 Patent is titled ‘Light Emitting Device with Dislocation Bending Structure.” It 

was filed on February 10, 2012, and issued on January 21, 2014.

The ’133 Patent is titled “Group III Nitride Heterostructure for Optoelectronic Device.” It 

was filed on September 23, 2014, and issued on May 23, 2017.

The ’420 Patent is titled “Device with Transparent and Higher Conductive Regions in 

Lateral Cross Section of Semiconductor Layer.” It was filed on November 3, 2014, and issued on 

May 26, 2015.

The Court’s overview of each patent immediately precedes the analyses of that patent’s 

claim terms in the Discussion section infra. 

Procedural History

On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendants infringed 

Plaintiff’s patents. ECF No. 1. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that Defendants infringed the ’562 

Patent as well as the five claim construction Patents: the ’965, ’496, ’468, ’133, and ’420 Patents. 

Id. at ¶¶ 18-62. On October 30, 2018, Defendants Bolb, Inc. and Quantum Egg, Inc. separately 

answered Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF Nos. 26-27. 

On March 29, 2019, the parties filed a joint claim construction statement. ECF No. 55. On 

May 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opening claim construction brief. ECF No. 58 (“Opening Br.”). 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 2 of 81
3

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

On May 28, 2019, Defendants jointly filed a responsive claim construction brief. ECF No. 60 

(“Resp. Br.”). On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply claim construction brief. ECF No. 63 

(“Reply”). The Court held a claim construction hearing on July 25, 2019. ECF No. 66.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Claim Construction

The Court construes patent claims as a matter of law based on the relevant intrinsic and 

extrinsic evidence. See Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 744 F.3d 

1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (en banc); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

“Ultimately, 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.” 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, a claim 

should be construed in a manner that “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns 

with the patent’s description of the invention.” Id.

In construing claim terms, a court looks first to the claims themselves, for “[i]t is a 

‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the 

patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari 

Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Generally, the words of a claim 

should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term[s] 

would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 

1312-13. In some instances, the ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art is clear, and claim 

construction may involve “little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of 

commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314.

In many cases, however, the meaning of a term to a person skilled in the art will not be 

readily apparent, and a court must look to other sources to determine the term’s meaning. See id. 

Under these circumstances, a court should consider the context in which the term is used in an 

asserted claim or in related claims and bear in mind that “the person of ordinary skill in the art is 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 3 of 81
4

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed 

term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. The 

specification “‘is always highly relevant’” and “‘[u]sually . . . dispositive; it is the single best 

guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 

Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Indeed, “the only meaning that matters in claim 

construction is the meaning in the context of the patent.” Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec 

Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Where the specification reveals that the patentee has 

given a special definition to a claim term that differs from the meaning it would ordinarily possess, 

“the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. Likewise, where the specification reveals an 

intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor, the inventor’s intention as 

revealed through the specification is dispositive. Id. 

In addition to the specification, a court may also consider the patent’s prosecution history, 

which consists of the complete record of proceedings before the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (“PTO”) and includes the cited prior art references. The prosecution history 

“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. at 1317. 

A court is also authorized to consider extrinsic evidence in construing claims, such as 

“expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman v. Westview 

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Expert 

testimony may be particularly useful in “[providing] background on the technology at issue, . . . 

explain[ing] how an invention works, . . . ensur[ing] that the court’s understanding of the technical 

aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or . . . establish[ing] that 

a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field.” 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Although a court may consider evidence extrinsic to the patent and 

prosecution history, such evidence is considered “less significant than the intrinsic record” and 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 4 of 81
5

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

“less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” 

Id. at 1317-18 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, while extrinsic evidence 

may be useful in claim construction, ultimately “it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation 

of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319. Any 

expert testimony “that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims 

themselves, the written description, and the prosecution history” will be significantly discounted. 

Id. at 1318 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, while the specification may 

describe a preferred embodiment, the claims are not necessarily limited only to that embodiment. 

Id. at 1323; see also Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L., 318 F.3d 1143, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 

2003) (“The general rule, of course, is that claims of a patent are not limited to the preferred 

embodiment, unless by their own language.”). 

Indefiniteness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b),1a patent must “conclude with one or more claims particularly 

pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] 

invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) includes what is commonly called the “definiteness” requirement. 

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 902 (2014). In Nautilus, the United States 

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.” Id. at 901. As the Court 

observed, § 112(b) “entails a ‘delicate balance.’” Id. at 909 (quoting Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu 

Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 731 (2002)). “On the one hand, the definiteness 

 

1 The Court cites the version of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that took effect on September 16, 2012, pursuant 

to the America Invents Act (“AIA”). In re Bimeda Research & Dev. Ltd., 724 F.3d 1320, 1323 n. 

3 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Patents filed before that date are subject to the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 

whereas patents filed after that date are subject to the AIA version of § 112 that took effect on 

September 16, 2012. Id. The instant case involves patents filed both before and after September 

16, 2012. Nevertheless, the “AIA did not make any substantive change to § 112; therefore, the 

analysis is identical” for pre-AIA and post-AIA patents. In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369, 1372 n.1 

(Fed. Cir. 2018).

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 5 of 81
6

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

requirement must take into account the inherent limitations of language.” Id. (citing Festo, 535 

U.S. at 731). “At the same time, a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is

claimed, thereby ‘appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them.’” Id. (quoting Markman, 517 

U.S. at 373). Thus, “the certainty which the law requires in patents is not greater than is 

reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter.” Id. at 910 (quoting Minerals Separation v. 

Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916)).

The Federal Circuit applied the Nautilus standard in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 

766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The case involved two patents which covered an “attention 

manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device.” Id.

at 1366. In one embodiment, the patents involved placing advertising on websites in areas 

surrounding the principal content of the webpage, for example in the margins of an article. 

Several of the asserted claims included a limitation that the advertisements (“content data”) would 

be displayed “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the display device.” Id. at 

1368. The district court found that the terms “in an unobtrusive manner” and “does not distract the 

user” were indefinite, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Id. at 1368-69. The Federal Circuit found 

that the “‘unobtrusive manner’ phrase is highly subjective and, on its face, provides little guidance 

to one of skill in the art” and “offers no objective indication of the manner in which content 

images are to be displayed to the user.” Id. at 1371. Accordingly, the Court looked to the written 

description for guidance. The Court concluded that the specification lacked adequate guidance to 

give the phrase a “reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim 

language without an objective boundary.” Id. at 1373. Accordingly, the claims containing the 

“unobtrusive manner” phrase were indefinite.

In applying the Nautilus standard, the Federal Circuit has cautioned that “the dispositive 

question in an indefiniteness inquiry is whether the ‘claims,’ not particular claim terms” fail the 

Nautilus test. Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 

2016). For that reason, a claim term that “does not discernably alter the scope of the claims” may 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 6 of 81
7

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

fail to serve as a source of indefiniteness. Id. For example, in Cox Communications, the Federal 

Circuit determined that the term “processing system” did not render the method claims at issue 

indefinite because “the point of novelty resides with the steps of these methods, not with the 

machine that performs them.” Id. at 1229. Thus, the court reasoned, “[i]f ‘processing system’ does 

not discernably alter the scope of the claims, it is difficult to see how this term would prevent the 

claims . . . from serving their notice function under [§ 112(b)].” Id.

The Court therefore reviews the claims, specification, and prosecution history to determine 

whether the claims “inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of 

the invention.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. Indefiniteness renders a claim invalid, and must be 

shown by clear and convincing evidence. See Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 

1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008); cf. Nautilus, 572 U.S at 912 n.10.

III. DISCUSSION

Below, the Court discusses the following patents in the following order: the ’965 Patent;

the ’496 Patent; the ’468 Patent; the ’133 Patent; and the ’420 Patent.

The ’965 Patent

1. Overview of the ’965 Patent

The ’965 Patent generally relates to “disinfecting flowable products using ultraviolet 

radiation.” ’965 Patent at 3:44-45. As defined by the Patent, “flowable products” include “liquids, 

suspensions, creams, colloids, emulsions, powders, and/or the like.” Id. at 3:45-47. Furthermore, 

the specification states that the definition of “flowable products” also includes “accessories or 

ancillary products used in conjunction” with the “flowable products” disclosed in the previous 

sentence. Id. at 3:48-50. Such “accessories” or “ancillary products” include “containers (e.g., 

cases), covers (e.g., caps), brushes, applicators, and/or the like.” Id. at 3:50-52. 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 7 of 81
8

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Fig. 2B of the ’965 Patent exemplifies the disclosed invention. Fig. 2B shows an example 

of a container (item 40) that can “store a flowable product . . . for which disinfection is desired.” 

Id. at 6:57-59. The container (item 40) comprises two compartments, the first of which is item 24, 

which can store a larger portion of a flowable product than the second compartment (item 26). Id.

at 6:61-65. A pumping device (item 30) can be engaged to transfer flowable product from the 

larger first compartment (item 24) into the smaller second compartment (item 26). Id. The second 

compartment (item 26) can have a cover (item 27) that would allow ultraviolet radiation to pass 

through the cover (item 27) and into the second compartment (item 26). Id. at 7:1-2, 28-32. The 

cover (item 27) to the second compartment (item 26) can also be porous so that flowable product 

can be extracted from the second compartment (item 26), such as by applying pressure to the 

second compartment (item 26). Id. at 7:11-14.

A cap (item 2) can be used to enclose the volume of the container (item 40) and be 

attached to the container (item 40) using, for instance, a screw thread. Id. at Abstract, 7:22-23,

2:21-25 (disclosing a “case configured to enclose a volume corresponding to a flowable product, 

wherein the flowable product can be accessed when the case is open” and “a cover configured to 

selectively close and open the case”). Ultraviolet radiation sources (item 4) can be located onto the 

cap (item 2) such that when the cap (item 2) is securely attached to the container (item 40), the 

ultraviolet radiation sources (item 4) are positioned such that the ultraviolet radiation is directed at 

the ultraviolet transparent cover (item 27) to the second compartment (item 26). Id. at 7:23-32. As 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 8 of 81
9

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

a result, ultraviolet radiation would pass through the cover (item 27) into the second compartment 

(item 26), and would reach any flowable product present in the second compartment (item 26). Id.

at 7:28-32. Therefore, the ultraviolet radiation source (item 4) would disinfect the flowable 

product in the second compartment (item 26) and the second compartment (item 26). Id. at 32-35.

The parties request construction of two terms: (1) “cover” (found in claim 1), and (2) 

“second compartment defines the volume” (found in claim 2). Below, the Court addresses each 

claim term in turn.

2. “cover” 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning “a lid or cap that seals the case when closed or 

attached”

The term “cover” appears in claim 1 of the ’965 Patent. Claim 1 of the ’965 Patent recites:

1. An apparatus comprising:

an ultraviolet radiation containing case configured to enclose a 

volume corresponding to a flowable liquid product, wherein the 

flowable liquid product can be accessed when the case is open;

a cover configured to selectively close and open the case;

at least one ultraviolet radiation source mounted on at least one of: the 

case or the cover, the at least one ultraviolet radiation source 

comprising an ultraviolet light emitting diode configured to generate 

ultraviolet radiation for disinfecting the volume corresponding to the 

flowable liquid product; and

a sensor configured to cause the at least one ultraviolet radiation 

source to turn off when the volume is not closed.

’965 Patent at Cl. 1 (emphasis added).

Plaintiff argues that the claim term “cover” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 

Opening Br. at 4. Defendants argue that “cover” should mean “a lid or cap that seals the case when 

closed or attached.” Resp. Br. at 2. For the reasons discussed below, the Court mostly adopts 

Defendants’ proposed construction, though the Court’s construction omits any mention of a “lid.” 

The Court is well within its discretion to eschew the litigants’ proposed constructions. The 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 9 of 81
10

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Federal Circuit has held that the “duty of a trial judge is to determine the meaning of the claims at 

issue, and to instruct the jury accordingly. In the exercise of that duty, the trial judge has an 

independent obligation to determine the meaning of the claims, notwithstanding the views asserted 

by the adversary parties.” Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Homeland Housewares, 

LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., 865 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that courts may “adopt a 

definition not proposed by either party that best fits with the claim language and specification”). 

For instance, the Glaxo Grp. LTD v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. court stated that the “Court will not 

adopt [the defendant’s] proposed construction. However, the Court will also not adopt [the 

patentee’s] proposed construction.” 2009 WL 1220544, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 30, 2009); see also

Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, 2016 WL 9229318, at *5 (D.N.J. May 16, 2016)

(construing claim term in a way that neither side proposed); P3 Int’l Corp. v. Unique Products, 

Mfg. Ltd., 2009 WL 1424178, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2009) (same); Retractable Techs., Inc. v. 

Becton Dickinson & Co., 2009 WL 837887, at *17 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2009) (same), aff’d in part 

and rev’d in part on other grounds, 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Negotiated Data Solutions, 

LLC v. Dell, Inc., 596 F. Supp. 2d 949, 974-75 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (same).

Thus, the Court’s construction of the claim term “cover” is “a cap that seals the case when 

closed or attached.” Below, the Court addresses why the Court’s construction is correct. As 

always, claim construction begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence, Gillette Co. v. 

Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and “gives primacy to the 

language of the claims,” Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

a. Intrinsic Evidence

The Court discusses the claim language, the prosecution history, and the specification in 

turn.

i. Claim Language

The Court begins by analyzing the claim language. According to the Federal Circuit, 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 10 of 81
11

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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 terms must be interpreted consistently” with other claim terms. Southwall Techs., Inc. v. 

Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Claim 1 requires that the cover be 

“configured to selectively close and open the case”; the case must “enclose a volume 

corresponding to a flowable liquid product”; the ultraviolet radiation source must “turn off when 

the volume is not closed”; and the “flowable liquid product can be accessed when the case is 

open.” ’965 Patent at Cl. 1. Considering all these claim elements together, the “cover” requires 

that the case be sealed when closed. Claim 1 requires that the case “enclose a volume 

corresponding to a flowable liquid product.” Id. (emphasis added). Only when the case is open can 

the “flowable liquid product . . . be accessed.” Id. Thus, if the case is not sealed when closed, then 

the case can hardly be said to “enclose” a volume of the flowable liquid product accessible when 

the case is open. For instance, the volume of flowable liquid product could leak and thus become 

accessible when the case is closed. Thus, the flowable liquid product would not be enclosed by the 

case. Therefore, the claim terms support the Court’s construction that when the case is closed, the 

case is also “sealed.” 

ii. Prosecution History

In response to a United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) office action 

rejecting various claims for being anticipated by the Palmer reference, United States Patent 

Application number 13/780,546, the applicant traversed the examiner’s rejection by distinguishing 

the Palmer reference. ECF No. 62-1 at 8. The Palmer reference was directed to improving air 

quality in a home by, for instance, passing the air through a germicidal radiation chamber 

containing at least one ultraviolet light source. U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/780,546, Specification 

(filed February 28, 2013). The Palmer apparatus included a chamber with a cover. ECF No. 62-1 

at 8. The applicant distinguished the Palmer reference by arguing that in Palmer, “regardless of the 

position of the cover” as open or closed, air could still pass into the chamber. Id. The applicant 

understood that in the instant invention, the cover, when closed, must seal the case such that a 

flowable liquid product in the volume of the case cannot leak out, unlike how the cover in Palmer, 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 11 of 81
12

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

when closed, would not prevent air from passing into the chamber. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff asserts that the applicant distinguished the Palmer reference by 

arguing that the Palmer reference “does not disclose that the [Palmer reference’s] chamber [] 

encloses a volume corresponding to a flowable product as in claim 1.” Reply Br. at 3 (citing ECF 

No. 62-1 at 8). Also, Plaintiff believes the applicant’s argument in the previous paragraph 

regarding the permeability of the Palmer reference’s cover when closed was not sufficiently clear 

enough to disclaim embodiments of cases that fail to “seal” the enclosed volume when the cover is 

closed. Id. at 3. The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive.

First, although Plaintiff notes that the applicant distinguished the Palmer reference because 

the reference lacked a chamber that encloses a volume of a flowable product, that argument is not 

mutually exclusive of the applicant’s argument in the same paragraph that the Palmer reference is 

also distinguishable because the Palmer reference allows air to enter the chamber even if the cover 

is closed. The applicant merely identified two different ways in which the Palmer reference could 

be distinguished from the patent application. 

Moreover, the Court finds that the applicant disclaimed embodiments of cases that do not 

“seal” the enclosed volume when the case cover is closed. Prosecution disclaimer precludes 

“patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during 

prosecution.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For 

prosecution disclaimer to attach, “the disavowal must be both clear and unmistakable.” 

Massachusetts Institute of Tech. v. Shire Pharm., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

“Where the alleged disavowal is ambiguous, or even amenable to multiple reasonable 

interpretations, we have declined to find prosecution disclaimer.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). A clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope takes place when, for instance, “the 

patentee explicitly characterizes an aspect of his invention in a specific manner to overcome prior 

art.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharm., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Here, the Court finds that disavowal was clear and unmistakable because the applicant 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 12 of 81
13

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

characterized an aspect of the invention in a specific manner to overcome the prior art Palmer 

reference. See id. Specifically, the applicant characterized the claimed invention as a “containing 

case” that can store a “flowable product” within when the case is closed. ECF No. 62-1 at 9-10. To 

overcome the Palmer reference, the applicant argued that the Palmer reference’s chamber is “not 

described as storing anything” because “it is not described as being completely enclosed, thereby 

allowing air to enter and leave the chamber” even if the chamber’s cover is closed. Id. at 8-10. 

Therefore, the applicant distinguished the claimed invention from the Palmer reference by 

characterizing the claimed invention as a case able to store a flowable product if the case is closed 

and thereby “sealing” the flowable product within the case, whereas the Palmer reference’s 

chamber is permeable even if the chamber’s cover is closed. So, if the claimed invention does not 

“seal” flowable product within the closed case, which would allow flowable product to escape or 

leak from the case, the applicant could not have distinguished the Palmer reference because the 

Palmer reference’s chamber is permeable even if the chamber’s cover is closed.

iii. Specification

The ’965 Patent’s specification interchangeably uses “cover” and “cap.” See, e.g., ’965 

Patent at 3:52-53 (disclosing “an ultraviolet impermeable cover (also referred to as a cap)”); id. at 

4:52-53 (referring to the cover as an “ultraviolet impermeable cap”); id. at 6:24-26 (same). Thus, 

the specification supports the construction that a cap can be used to seal the case. 

However, the ’965 Patent makes no mention of a “lid,” which Defendants include in their 

proposed construction. Resp. Br. at 2. Defendants argue that in reference to Fig. 13B, which 

depicts a powder compact, the specification refers to the lid of the powder compact as a “cap.” 

Resp. Br. at 2. However, the Patent does not refer to the powder compact as having a “lid.” Also, 

during the claim construction hearing, Defendants’ counsel admitted that “lid” and “cap” are, in 

practice, equivalent. Courts have declined to adopt constructions that include synonyms. Aircraft 

Technical Publishers v. Avantext, Inc., 2009 WL 3817944, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) 

(declining to add a “synonymous” term in a construction because “‘generating’ has the same 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 13 of 81
14

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

meaning [as] ‘producing’”) (citing Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l., Inc., 502 F. 

Supp. 2d 568, 576 (E.D. Ky. 2007) (“[S]imply swapping words with synonyms is not 

construction.”)). Therefore, this Court finds that there is no need to include “lid” in this 

construction because Defendants’ counsel admitted that “lid” and “cap” are equivalent. 

b. Summary

Intrinsic evidence such as the claim language, prosecution history, and patent specification 

all support the Court’s construction of the claim term “cover” in claim 1 of the ’965 Patent as “a 

cap that seals the case when closed or attached.” 

The Court need not consider extrinsic evidence because the meaning of the claim term 

“cover” is resolvable by reliance on intrinsic evidence. If the meaning of a claim term “can be 

resolved from the intrinsic evidence alone, we need not rely on any extrinsic evidence.” Pickholtz 

v. Rainbow Tech., Inc., 284 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Relying on extrinsic evidence to 

construe a claim is proper only when the claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after 

consideration of the intrinsic evidence.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 

F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

3. “second compartment defines the volume”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning, or in the 

alternative, “the volume includes the 

second compartment”

Indefinite. In the alternative, “only the second 

compartment is exposed to ultraviolet radiation 

from the at least one ultraviolet radiation source”

The phrase “second compartment defines the volume” appears in claim 2 of the ’965 

Patent. Claim 2 of the ’965 Patent recites:

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the case comprises: 

a first compartment configured to store a first portion of the flowable 

liquid product; and

a second compartment configured to store a second portion of the 

flowable liquid product, wherein the second compartment includes a 

cover at least partially formed by an ultraviolet transparent material, 

and wherein the second compartment defines the volume such that 

the at least one ultraviolet radiation source is configured to generate 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 14 of 81
15

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

ultraviolet radiation for disinfecting the second portion of the 

flowable liquid product through the ultraviolet transparent material,

wherein the first compartment and the second compartment are both 

located within an interior region of the case.

’965 Patent at Cl. 2 (emphasis added). 

Claim 1 of the ’965 Patent recites:

1. An apparatus comprising:

an ultraviolet radiation containing case configured to enclose a 

volume corresponding to a flowable liquid product, wherein the 

flowable liquid product can be accessed when the case is open;

a cover configured to selectively close and open the case;

at least one ultraviolet radiation source mounted on at least one of: the 

case or the cover, the at least one ultraviolet radiation source 

comprising an ultraviolet light emitting diode configured to generate 

ultraviolet radiation for disinfecting the volume corresponding to the 

flowable liquid product; and

a sensor configured to cause the at least one ultraviolet radiation 

source to turn off when the volume is not closed.

’965 Patent at Cl. 1.

Plaintiff argues that “second compartment defines the volume” should be given its plain 

and ordinary meaning, or in the alternative, be construed to mean “the volume includes the second 

compartment.” Opening Br. at 5. Defendants argue that “second compartment defines the volume” 

is indefinite, or alternatively, should be construed to mean “only the second compartment is 

exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the at least one ultraviolet radiation source.” Resp. Br. at 4. 

The Court finds that claim 2 is not indefinite. Moreover, for the reasons discussed below, 

the Court adopts Plaintiff’s proposed construction and construes the claim term “second 

compartment defines the volume” to mean “the volume includes the second compartment.” 

As always, claim construction begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence, 

Gillette Co., 405 F.3d at 1370, and “gives primacy to the language of the claims,” Tempo Lighting, 

Inc., 742 F.3d at 977.

a. Intrinsic Evidence

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 15 of 81
16

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

The Court begins with the claim language, then turns to the specification. Finally, the 

Court addresses why the claim is not indefinite.

i. Claim Language

There are two major points of contention between the parties. The first point of contention 

concerns the meaning of “defines the volume,” and the second point of contention is over whether 

the claim term restricts exposure to ultraviolet radiation to only the second compartment. The 

Court discusses each point of contention in turn. 

a.“Defines the volume”

First, the Court discusses the parties’ dispute over the meaning of “defines the volume.” 

Unfortunately, the ’965 Patent does not explicitly address what it means for the second 

compartment to “define” the volume. Defendants argue that in order for the second compartment 

to “define” the volume, the second compartment must occupy the entire volume of the case. Resp. 

Br. at 5. On the other hand, Plaintiff contends that “define” should not be interpreted in isolation. 

Rather, the entire phrase should be read in context with all the claim language. If read in context, 

Plaintiff asserts that the phrase is sufficiently clear that the relationship between the volume and 

the second compartment is such that the volume includes the second compartment. The Court 

finds that Plaintiff has the better argument.

Under Federal Circuit law, “[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the 

entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. 

Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 

F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“While certain terms may be at the center of the claim 

construction debate, the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered . . . 

.”). “A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one 

that does not do so . . . .” SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Comm’cns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 

429 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(“[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”). Also, 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 16 of 81
17

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

“claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity.” MBO Labs., Inc. v. 

Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The claim language supports the Court’s construction. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, 

which means that claim 2 refers “back to and further limit[s]” claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). The 

preamble of claim 2 discloses that claim 2’s elements relate to “the case,” ’965 Patent at Cl. 2, 

which has antecedent support from claim 1’s disclosure of a “case configured to enclose a 

volume,” id. at Cl. 1. Thus, the “case” described by claim 2 encloses a “volume.” However, claim 

2 states that a first compartment and a second compartment are “both located within an interior 

region of the case.” ’965 Patent at Cl. 2 (emphasis added). This is the ’965 Patent’s one and only 

reference to “interior region.” Nevertheless, the Court finds that the specification provides 

guidance to decipher the meaning of “interior region.”

Specifically, the ’965 Patent’s specification states that the case’s “volume [] can 

correspond to an interior of a case within which the flowable product is stored, an area where a 

portion of the flowable product is exposed, and/or the like.” Id. at 4:57-60 (emphasis added). The 

specification describes “interior” as a part of a case “within which the flowable product is scored.” 

Id. Likewise, the first and the second compartments as described in claim 2 both “store” portions 

of the “flowable liquid product.” Id. at Cl. 2. Thus, the “interior” as described in the specification

performs the same function as the “interior region” as described in the claim (i.e., where first and 

second compartments that store flowable liquid product are located). Although the specification 

refers to “interior” as opposed to “interior region” as in claim 2, the Court finds that “interior” as 

used in the specification is synonymous with the meaning of claim 2’s “interior region.”

Therefore, because claim 2 provides that the second compartment is located within an 

interior region of the case, and the specification links the case volume with the “interior of the 

case,” the evidence supports the Court’s construction that “the volume includes the second 

compartment.” Though Defendants believe that the meaning of “defines the volume,” part of the 

claim term, requires that the second compartment occupy the entire volume of the case, the 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 17 of 81
18

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Court’s discussion below explains why Defendants’ position is untenable. The only reasonable 

interpretation of “defines the volume” that gives effect to all claim terms is that the second 

compartment occupies a part of the volume of the case.

If the second compartment, which stores the second portion of the flowable liquid, 

occupies the entirety of the case’s interior region as Defendants suggest, various claim elements 

would be impermissibly read out of the claims or be rendered nonsensical. See Bicon, Inc., 441 

F.3d at 950 (“[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”). 

For instance, one of claim 2’s elements is that “the first compartment and the second compartment 

are both located within an interior region of the case.” ’965 Patent at Cl. 2 (emphasis added). If the 

second compartment occupies the entire interior region of the case, the interior region of the case 

would not have room for the first compartment. Thus, Defendants’ argument improperly reads out 

claim 2’s requirement that the first and second compartments are both located within the case’s 

interior region.

Furthermore, claim 1’s volume of “flowable liquid product” is divided into a “first 

portion” stored within the first compartment and a “second portion” stored within the second 

compartment. Id.; ’965 Patent at Cl. 1. If the second compartment were to constitute the entire 

interior region of the case as Defendants posit, the case could only ever contain the second 

compartment’s second portion of the flowable liquid product. There would be no room for the first 

compartment that contains the first portion of the flowable liquid product. Consequently, if the 

second compartment constitutes the entire interior region of the case, as Defendants posit, the 

volume of claim 1’s “flowable liquid product” cannot be divided into two portions and stored 

within two compartments located in the interior region of the case as claim 2 requires. 

In addition, if the second compartment were to constitute the entirety of the case’s interior

region, the case could only ever enclose the volume that corresponds to the second portion of the 

flowable liquid product stored within the second compartment. As such, the second portion of the 

flowable liquid product would no longer be a portion of the volume of the flowable liquid product 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 18 of 81
19

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

enclosed by the case, as required by claim 2. Rather, the second portion of the flowable liquid 

product would necessarily constitute the entire volume of flowable liquid product enclosed by the 

case. A contradiction arises because the second portion of the flowable liquid product cannot 

simultaneously be a portion of the flowable liquid product enclosed by the case and also be the 

entire amount of flowable liquid product enclosed by the case.

Therefore, the plain language of the claims support the Court’s construction of “second 

compartment defines the volume” to mean “the volume includes the second compartment.” 

b. Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure

Second, the parties disagree on whether the claim term limits exposure to ultraviolet 

radiation to just the second compartment. Claim 2 links the second compartment to ultraviolet 

radiation as follows: 

[T]he second compartment defines the volume such that the at least 

one ultraviolet radiation source is configured to generate ultraviolet 

radiation for disinfecting the second portion of the flowable liquid 

product through the ultraviolet transparent material . . . .

’965 Patent at Cl. 2.

In patent law, it is axiomatic that use of the word “comprising” or derivatives thereof, like 

“comprises,” in the preamble of a patent claim “is well understood to mean including but not 

limited to.” CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). A patent claim using “comprises” can explicitly disclose various claim 

elements, but does not preclude the inclusion of additional, unrecited elements in the claim. Here, 

claim 2 uses “comprises,” so even though claim 2 states that the “at least one ultraviolet radiation 

source is configured to generate ultraviolet radiation for disinfecting the second portion of the 

flowable liquid product,” claim 2 does not preclude the possibility that ultraviolet radiation may be 

used to disinfect the first portion of the flowable liquid product as well. ’965 Patent at Cl. 2. In 

fact, claim 7, which depends from claim 2, claims a “plurality of ultraviolet radiation sources” 

configured to “disinfect the first portion of the flowable liquid product.” ’965 Patent at Cl. 7. 

Thus, the ’965 Patent’s claims support the Court’s conclusion that because claim 2’s preamble 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 19 of 81
20

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

uses “comprises” to describe the elements of claim 2, the claim does not prohibit interior regions 

of the case other than the second compartment from being disinfected.

In sum, claim 2 does not preclude areas other than the second compartment from being 

exposed to and disinfected by ultraviolet radiation. As a result, the Court cannot adopt 

Defendants’ construction of the claim term because the construction erroneously limits the 

exposure to ultraviolet radiation to “only the second compartment.” Resp. Br. at 4 (emphasis 

added). 

ii. Specification

The ’965 Patent’s specification supports the Court’s construction that “the volume includes 

the second compartment” as well as Plaintiff’s position that the claim term does not restrict the 

exposure of ultraviolet radiation to just the second compartment. 

Fig. 2B below depicts a container (item 40) that contains a first compartment (item 24) and 

a second compartment (item 26). ’965 Patent at 6:55, 62-64. The second compartment (item 26) 

can have a cover (item 27) at least partially made of material transparent to ultraviolet radiation. 

Id. at 7:1-2. The cap (item 2) can be attached to the container (item 40). Id. at 7:22. Ultraviolet 

radiation sources (item 4) can be positioned to direct ultraviolet radiation at the second 

compartment (item 26) such that ultraviolet radiation passes through the second compartment’s 

cover (item 27) and into the second compartment (item 26), which may contain flowable liquid 

product (item 29). Id. at 7:24-32. In addition, “any portion of the second compartment [(item 26)] 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 20 of 81
21

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

can be fabricated using an ultraviolet transparent material.” Id. at 7:20-21.

When the cap (item 2) is attached to the container (item 40), the cap (item 2) thereby 

encloses the volume of the container (item 40). Id. at 2:12-18. The second compartment (item 26) 

is located within the volume. Id. at 2:38-40. Therefore, Fig. 2 and the detailed description 

associated with Fig. 2 buttress the Court’s construction that “the volume includes the second 

compartment.”

Moreover, assuming arguendo that the second compartment (item 27) were made entirely 

of an ultraviolet transparent material, the ultraviolet radiation directed at the second compartment 

(item 26) could pass through the second compartment (item 27) and into the first compartment 

(item 24). Therefore, even though the ultraviolet radiation sources (item 4) are positioned to emit 

ultraviolet radiation into the second compartment (item 27), the specification does not limit 

exposure to ultraviolet radiation to just the second compartment (item 27). In fact, the 

specification states that “the ultraviolet radiation source(s) [(item 4)] can be operated . . . to 

disinfect the portions of . . . the container [(item 40)]. Id. at 7:33-35.

iii. Why Claim 2 is not Indefinite

The Court rejects Defendants’ position that the claim is indefinite because a skilled artisan 

would understand, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the invention. 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 21 of 81
22

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

The United States Supreme Court has held that if a claim, “viewed in light of the 

specification and prosecution history, inform[s] those skilled in the art about the scope of the 

invention with reasonable certainty,” the claim is not indefinite. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. In 

applying the Nautilus standard, the Federal Circuit has cautioned that “the dispositive question in 

an indefiniteness inquiry is whether the ‘claims,’ not particular claim terms” fail the Nautilus test. 

Cox Commc’ns, 838 F.3d at 1231. Defendants bear the “burden of proving indefiniteness by clear 

and convincing evidence.” BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 

2017). 

Defendants believe claim 2 is indefinite for two reasons. First, Defendants argue that claim 

2 is indefinite because “the second compartment defines the volume” renders claim 2 internally 

contradictory. Resp. Br. at 5. Defendants assert that in order for the second compartment to 

“define” the volume enclosed by the case, the second compartment must occupy the entire volume 

enclosed by the case. Id. at 5-6. The contradiction arises because claim 2 requires that a first 

compartment also be located in an interior region of the case, a physical impossibility if the second 

compartment occupies the whole volume enclosed by the case. Second, Defendants find it 

contradictory that claim 1 requires the “at least one ultraviolet radiation source” to disinfect the 

volume, “but in each of the illustrated embodiments, the ‘at least one ultraviolet radiation source’ 

disinfects only the second compartment and the second portion of flowable liquid product therein.” 

Id. at 5 (emphasis added).

Defendants are correct in their understanding that “claims that [are] internally 

contradictory” are indefinite, and “claims that contradict[] the specification [are] invalid as 

indefinite.” Multilayer Stretch Fling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 

1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, the Court finds that claim 2 is not internally contradictory and 

does not contradict the specification. Below, the Court addresses each of Defendants’ arguments 

in turn.

First, the purported internal contradiction within claim 2 is of Defendants’ own making 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 22 of 81
23

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

because the contradiction only arises under Defendants’ erroneous interpretation of “second 

compartment defines the volume.” Specifically, Defendants interpret “defines the volume” to 

mean that the second compartment occupies the entire volume enclosed by the case, which creates 

the contradiction because claim 2 requires that a first compartment also occupy part of the volume 

enclosed by the case. 

As discussed above, under Federal Circuit law, “claims are interpreted with an eye toward 

giving effect to all terms in the claim,” Bicon, Inc., 441 F.3d at 950, and “claims should be so 

construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity,” MBO Labs., Inc., 474 F.3d at 1332. Defendants’ 

interpretation fails to give effect to “all terms in the claim” because the interpretation reads out 

multiple limitations from claim 2. Bicon, Inc., 441 F.3d at 950. For instance, Defendants’ 

interpretation reads out claim 2’s requirements that: “the first compartment and the second 

compartment are both located within an interior region of the case”; the volume of claim 1’s 

“flowable liquid product” is divided into two portions and stored within two compartments located 

in the interior region of the case; and the second compartment contains a second “portion” of the 

flowable liquid product. ’965 Patent at Cl. 2. Moreover, Defendants’ interpretation gives rise to 

the aforementioned contradiction, even though “claims should be so construed, if possible, as to 

sustain their validity.” MBO Labs., Inc., 474 F.3d at 1332. Thus, as discussed above, the only 

reasonable interpretation of “second compartment defines the volume” that gives effect to all 

claim terms and does not render claim 2 internally contradictory is Plaintiff’s and the Court’s 

construction that “the volume includes the second compartment.” 

Second, Defendants find it contradictory that claim 1 requires the “at least one ultraviolet 

radiation source” to disinfect the volume, “but in each of the illustrated embodiments, the ‘at least 

one ultraviolet radiation source’ disinfects only the second compartment and the second portion of 

flowable liquid product therein.” Resp. Br. at 5. However, it is not true that all the illustrated 

embodiments show that the ultraviolet radiation source only disinfects the second compartment 

and the second portion of flowable liquid product. As discussed above, Fig. 2B above depicts a 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 23 of 81
24

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

container (item 40) that contains a first compartment (item 24) and a second compartment (item 

26). ’965 Patent at 6:55, 62-64. Ultraviolet radiation sources (item 4) can be positioned to direct 

ultraviolet radiation at the second compartment (item 26) such that ultraviolet radiation passes 

through the second compartment’s cover (item 27) and into the second compartment (item 26). Id.

at 7:1-2. However, “any portion of the second compartment [(item 26)] can be fabricated using an 

ultraviolet transparent material.” Id. at 7:20-21. Thus, if the second compartment (item 27) were 

made entirely of an ultraviolet transparent material, the ultraviolet radiation directed at the second 

compartment (item 26) could pass through the second compartment (item 27) and into the first 

compartment (item 24). In addition, the specification states that “the ultraviolet radiation sources 

[(item 4)] can be operated . . . to disinfect the portions of . . . the container [(item 40)]. Id. at 7:33-

35. Therefore, there is no contradiction because Fig. 2B and its corresponding description within 

the specification do not limit the “at least one ultraviolet radiation source” from disinfecting the 

volume within the container. 

In sum, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving claim 2 to be indefinite by 

clear and convincing evidence. The Court’s construction of the claim term does not create an 

internal contradiction within claim 2, and Fig. 2B is an illustrated embodiment that shows that the 

“at least one ultraviolet radiation source” can, for instance, be used to disinfect the first 

compartment or the volume of the container. See, e.g., Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 

334 F.3d 1314, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding that claims were no longer indefinite after 

construing claims in a manner that eliminated an “inherent contradiction” within the claims).

b. Summary

Intrinsic evidence such as the claim language and patent specification all support the 

Court’s construction of the claim term “second compartment defines the volume” in claim 2 of the 

’965 Patent as “the volume includes the second compartment.”

The Court need not consider extrinsic evidence because the meaning of the claim term 

“second compartment defines the volume” is resolvable by reliance on intrinsic evidence. If the 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 24 of 81
25

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

meaning of a claim term “can be resolved from the intrinsic evidence alone, we need not rely on 

any extrinsic evidence.” Pickholtz, 284 F.3d at 1373. “Relying on extrinsic evidence to construe a 

claim is proper only when the claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after consideration of 

the intrinsic evidence.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc., 256 F.3d at 1332 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

The ’496 Patent

1. Overview of the ’496 Patent

The ’496 Patent, entitled Light Emitting Heterostructure with Partially Relaxed 

Semiconductor Layer, is directed toward a “light emitting heterostructure” that includes a partially 

relaxed semiconductor layer that “can be included as a sublayer of a contact semiconductor layer

of the light emitting heterostructure.” ’496 Patent at 2:26-30. In other words, the ’496 Patent is 

directed at improving, for instance, the light emitting characteristics of a heterostructure by adding 

and arranging various layers to the heterostructure in ways that can result in fewer defects in the 

light generating structure of the heterostructure. Id. at 2:30-34. The Court finds Fig. 7 of the Patent 

to be illuminating. 

Fig. 7 below depicts all the layers that can comprise an embodiment of the light emitting 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 25 of 81
26

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

heterostructure (item 12C). There is an n-type contact semiconductor layer (item 22) located on an 

opposing side of the light generating structure (item 14) and a p-type contact semiconductor layer 

(item 28) located on an opposing side of the light generating structure (item 14), a few layers 

above the light generating structure (item 14). Id. at 7:56-60. A “partially relaxed p-type contact 

semiconductor layer [item 18] and a dislocation blocking structure [item 16C] are shown 

embedded in the p-type contact semiconductor layer [item 28].” Id. at 7:60-63. There is an 

electron blocking layer (item 29) adjacent to the light generating structure (item 14). Id. at 7:63-

64. The dislocation blocking structure (item 16C) is composed of alternating compressive and 

tensile layers. Id. at 8:1-2.

Here, the parties request construction of two terms: (1) “embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer” (found in claims 1, 4, 7, and 12); and (2) “dislocation blocking structure” (found in 

claims 1, 7, and 12). Below, the Court addresses each claim term in turn.

2. “embedded partially relaxed sublayer”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“The p-type contact semiconductor layer 

and/or the n-type contact semiconductor 

layer incorporates within that layer a 

semiconductor sublayer that includes 

dislocations that reduce stress”

“a sublayer that includes dislocations that reduce 

stress and is surrounded by the layer it is 

incorporated into”

The claim term “embedded partially relaxed sublayer” appears in claims 1, 4, 7, and 12.

Claim 1 of the ’496 Patent recites:

1. A heterostructure comprising:

a substrate;

a buffer layer adjacent to the substrate;

a light generating structure having a first side and a second side, 

wherein the substrate is transparent to light generated by the light 

generating structure;

and n-type contact semiconductor layer located on the first side of the 

light generating structure;

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 26 of 81
27

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

a p-type contact semiconductor layer located on the second side of the 

light generating structure, wherein at least one of the contact 

semiconductor layers includes an embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer, and wherein at least one of the contact semiconductor 

layers is located between the light generating structure and the buffer 

layer; and

a dislocation blocking structure located between the partially 

relaxed sublayer and the light generating structure, wherein the 

dislocation blocking structure includes a graded composition that 

changes from a first side of the dislocation blocking structure to a 

second side thereof. 

’496 Patent at Cl. 1 (emphasis added).

Claim 4 of the ’496 Patent recites:

4. The heterostructure of claim 1, wherein the heterostructure is 

formed of group III-V materials, and wherein a lattice mismatch is 

obtained by a change in an aluminum molar content of the partially 

relaxed sublayer. 

’496 Patent at Cl. 4 (emphasis added).

Claim 7 of the ’496 Patent recites:

7. A device comprising:

a mesa structure including:

a substrate;

a buffer layer adjacent to the substrate;

a light generating structure having a first side and a second side, 

wherein the substrate is transparent to light generated by the light 

generating structure;

an n-type contact semiconductor layer located on the first side of the 

light generating structure;

a p-type contact semiconductor layer located on the second side of the 

light generating structure, wherein at least one of the contact 

semiconductor layers includes an embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer, and wherein at least one of the contact semiconductor 

layers is located between the light generating structure and the buffer 

layer; and

wherein the at least one of the contact semiconductor layers further 

includes a dislocation blocking structure located between the 

partially relaxed sublayer and the light generating structure, and

wherein the dislocating blocking structure includes a graded 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 27 of 81
28

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

composition that changes from a first side of the dislocation blocking 

structure to a second side thereof. 

’496 Patent at Cl. 7 (emphasis added).

Claim 12 of the ’496 Patent recites:

12. A method comprising:

forming a heterostructure, the heterostructure comprising:

a substrate;

a buffer layer adjacent to the substrate;

a light generating structure having a first side and a second side, 

wherein the substrate is transparent to light generated by the light 

generating structure;

an n-type contact semiconductor layer located on the first side of the 

light generating structure;

a p-type contact semiconductor layer located on the second side of the 

light generating structure, wherein at least one of the contact 

semiconductor layers includes an embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer, and wherein the at least one of the contact semiconductor 

layers is located between the light generating structure and the buffer 

layer; and

a dislocation blocking structure located between the partially 

relaxed sublayer and the light generating structure, wherein the 

dislocation blocking structure includes a graded composition that 

changes from a first side of the dislocation blocking structure to a 

second side thereof. 

’496 Patent at Cl. 12 (emphasis added).

Plaintiff argues that the claim term “embedded partially relaxed sublayer” should be 

construed to mean: “The p-type contact semiconductor layer and/or the n-type contact 

semiconductor layer incorporates within that layer a semiconductor sublayer that includes 

dislocations that reduce stress.” Opening Br. at 7. Defendants argue that the claim term should be 

construed to mean: “[A] sublayer that includes dislocations that reduce stress and is surrounded by 

the layer it is incorporated into.” Resp. Br. at 7.

As an initial matter, all parties acknowledge that the claim term is “embedded partially 

relaxed sublayer.” Opening Br. at 7; Resp. Br. at 7. However, the ’496 Patent equates “embedded

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 28 of 81
29

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

partially relaxed sublayer” with “partially relaxed sublayer.” For example, claims 1, 7, and 12 all 

disclose “an embedded partially relaxed sublayer,” which provides the antecedent basis for claims 

1, 7, and 12 to refer to “embedded partially relaxed sublayer” as “the partially relaxed sublayer.” 

Thus, the Court understands “partially relaxed sublayer” and “embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer” to be synonymous.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court mostly adopts Plaintiff’s proposed construction. 

However, the Court modifies Plaintiff’s proposed construction to be more faithful to the claims 

and specification because courts may “adopt a definition not proposed by either party that best fits 

with the claim language and specification.” Homeland Housewares, LLC, 865 F.3d at 1376. 

Specifically, the Court’s construction replaces the phrase “incorporates within that layer” in 

Plaintiff’s proposed construction with “includes.” Thus, the Court construes the claim term 

“embedded partially relaxed sublayer” to mean “the p-type contact semiconductor layer and/or the 

n-type contact semiconductor layer includes a semiconductor sublayer that includes dislocations 

that reduce stress.” 

As always, claim construction begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence, 

Gillette Co., 405 F.3d at 1370, and “gives primacy to the language of the claims,” Tempo Lighting, 

Inc., 742 F.3d at 977.

a. Intrinsic Evidence

Below, the Court discusses the claim language, then turns to the specification, and ends 

with prosecution history.

i. Claim Language

As to claim language, the Court addresses how the claim language supports the Court’s 

construction, how the claim language does not support Defendants’ proposed construction, and 

why the Court uses the term “includes” in the Court’s construction. 

First, the claim language supports the Court’s construction. For instance, the Court’s 

construction discloses n-type and p-type contact semiconductor layers. Likewise, claim 1 discloses 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 29 of 81
30

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

that the semiconductor structure includes “an n-type contact semiconductor layer” and “a p-type 

contact semiconductor layer.” ’496 Patent at Cl. 1. Furthermore, the Court’s construction states 

that the n-type and/or the p-type contact semiconductor layer includes a semiconductor sublayer. 

Correspondingly, claim 1 states that “at least one of the contact semiconductor layers includes an 

embedded partially relaxed sublayer.” Id. Moreover, the Court’s construction specifies that the 

semiconductor sublayer includes dislocations that reduce stress. Although none of the ’496 Patent 

claims associate the embedded partially relaxed sublayer (i.e., the semiconductor sublayer 

mentioned in the Court’s construction) with dislocations that reduce stress, the specification 

bridges that gap. The “specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the 

claims.” Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the specification, a 

semiconductor layer or sublayer is “partially relaxed” if the stresses in the layer or sublayer are 

reduced. ’496 Patent at 6:13-14. Dislocations within a semiconductor layer or sublayer “partially 

relax the layer and reduce stresses in the layer.” Id. at 6:8-11. Therefore, the Court’s construction 

correctly specifies that the semiconductor sublayer has dislocations that reduce stress. 

Though the Court relies upon claim 1 to support the Court’s construction, claims 4, 7, and 

12 also include the claim term. Claims 4, 7, and 12 feature, describe, and use the claim term in a 

manner indistinguishable from claim 1’s use of the claim term. For instance, claim 4 depends from 

claim 1, which provides the antecedent basis for claim 4’s use of the claim term. Thus, the claim 

term carries the same meaning in claims 1 and 4 because the Federal Circuit has held that claim 

terms “[b]ased on [an] antecedent basis relationship . . . carry the same meaning throughout the 

claims.” HowLink Global LLC v. Network Commc’ns Int’l Corp., 561 Fed. App’x 898, 903 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014). Indeed, a claim term “is presumed to have the same meaning throughout all of the 

claims in the absence of any reason to believe otherwise.” Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. 

Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In addition, independent claims 7 

and 12 also use the claim term, which is “presumed to have the same meaning” as used in claim 1. 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 30 of 81
31

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Id.

The claim language does not support Defendants’ proposed construction. Defendants 

construe the claim term as “a sublayer that includes dislocations that reduce stress and is 

surrounded by the layer it is incorporated into.” Resp. Br. at 7 (emphasis added). The Court 

declines to adopt Defendants’ proposed construction because the phrase “surrounded by” in 

Defendants’ proposed construction is unsupported by the claim language and impermissibly 

narrows claim scope. See, e.g., Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1055 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that it was error to narrowly construe claims if “there is nothing in the 

claim language or specification that supports narrowly construing the terms”); Kara Tech. Inc. v. 

Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The patentee is entitled to the full scope 

of his claims . . . .”). 

By contrast, the ’496 Patent’s claims use “includes” to define the spatial relationship 

between the “embedded partially relaxed sublayer” and the p-type or n-type contact semiconductor 

layers. Indeed, claim 1 states that at least one of the n-type or p-type contact semiconductor layers 

includes an embedded partially relaxed sublayer. See, e.g., ’496 Patent at Cl. 1 (emphasis added). 

Consequently, to ensure that the Court’s construction is faithful to the claim language and scope, 

the Court’s construction states: “the p-type contact semiconductor layer and/or the n-type contact 

semiconductor layer includes a semiconductor sublayer that includes dislocations that reduce 

stress.”

The Federal Circuit has held that claim terms are “given their ordinary and customary 

meaning . . . considered in the context of all the intrinsic evidence, including the claims.” Biogen 

Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Epistar Corp. 

v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A heavy presumption exists that 

claim terms carry their full ordinary and customary meaning . . . .”). Sometimes, “the ordinary 

meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent 

even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 31 of 81
32

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Under 

such circumstances, “general purpose dictionaries may be helpful,” but there is no indication that 

Federal Circuit law requires a court to consult extrinsic evidence such as general purpose 

dictionaries. Id. (emphasis added). Here, the Court need not rely upon dictionaries or other 

extrinsic sources to draw the simple conclusion that the ordinary and customary meaning of 

“includes,” a term used throughout the claims, specification, and in the Court’s construction, is not 

synonymous with “surrounded by,” a term that only appears in Defendants’ proposed 

construction.

For example, the ’496 Patent’s specification discloses that “the light emitting heterostructure 

12B includes a light generating structure 14.” ’496 Patent at 6:53-54 (emphasis added). As Fig. 6 

above shows, the light emitting heterostructure (item 12B) is comprised of various layers such as 

items 16B and 22B. One of those layers is the light generating structure (item 14). Thus, the ’496 

Patent uses “includes” to describe a semiconductor layer contained within another semiconductor 

structure. Moreover, the ’496 Patent discloses that a “dislocation blocking structure” can be 

described as “included” in an adjacent “partially relaxed semiconductor layer.” Id. at 2:30-32; see 

also id. at 3:54-56 (describing a semiconductor structure as “included” in an adjacent semiconductor 

layer). Therefore, the ’496 Patent uses “included” in two ways: (1) to describe a semiconductor layer

within another semiconductor layer; and (2) to describe a semiconductor layer adjacent to another 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 32 of 81
33

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

semiconductor layer.

On the other hand, Defendants’ use of “surrounded by” in Defendants’ proposed 

construction would impermissibly narrow the scope of the claims. For instance, if the sublayer that 

includes dislocations is surrounded by the layer it is incorporated into, then the sublayer with 

dislocations must be sandwiched within at least one of the n-type or p-type contact semiconductor 

layers. However, as discussed above, a layer can be said to include a semiconductor layer that is 

either adjacent to the layer or surrounded by the layer. 

Moreover, although the Court adopted a large portion of Plaintiff’s proposed construction,

the Court replaced the phrase “incorporates within that layer” with “includes.” The rationale for 

this change is similar to the Court’s reasoning for rejecting Defendants’ proposed construction. 

The Court believes that the phrase “incorporates within that layer” might be erroneously 

understood to mean that the semiconductor sublayer can only be located “within” the p-type or ntype contact semiconductor layer so that the contact semiconductor layer surrounds the 

semiconductor sublayer. As discussed above, such an interpretation impermissibly narrows the 

claims, which state that “at least one of the contact semiconductor layers includes an embedded 

partially relaxed sublayer.” ’496 Patent at Cl. 1 (emphasis added). Thus, the Court’s construction 

uses the term “includes” because the claims also use “includes,” which has an easily understood 

plain and ordinary meaning.

ii. Specification

The Court first discusses how the specification supports the Court’s construction of the 

claim term “embedded partially relaxed sublayer,” then how the specification does not support 

Defendants’ proposed construction. 

First, the specification explains that a partially relaxed sublayer “can be included as a 

sublayer of a contact semiconductor layer,” of which there are two types: a p-type or an n-type 

contact semiconductor layer. ’496 Patent at 2:28-29, 2:37-42. Correspondingly, the Court’s 

construction specifies that the “p-type contact semiconductor layer and/or the n-type contact 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 33 of 81
34

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

semiconductor layer includes a semiconductor sublayer.”

Moreover, the claim term describes the semiconductor sublayer as “partially relaxed.” The 

specification explains that a semiconductor layer or sublayer is “partially relaxed” if the stresses in 

the layer or sublayer are reduced. Id. at 6:13-14. This stress reduction can be achieved with 

dislocations that “partially relax the layer and reduce stresses in the layer.” Id. at 6:8-11. 

Correspondingly, to reflect that the semiconductor sublayer is “partially relaxed,” the Court’s 

construction specifies that the semiconductor sublayer “includes dislocations that reduce stress.” 

In addition, the claim term states that the partially relaxed sublayer is “embedded.” The 

Court finds that Fig. 7 and the corresponding discussion in the specification elucidate the meaning 

of “embedded.” 

Fig. 7, shown above, depicts a light emitting heterostructure (item 12C). Id. at 7:53-54. 

The specification states the “partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer” (item 18) and 

the “dislocation blocking structure” (item 16C) are “embedded in the p-type contact 

semiconductor layer” (item 28). Id. at 7:60-63 (emphasis added). Thus, the partially relaxed p-type 

contact semiconductor layer (item 18) is described as embedded in the adjacent p-type contact 

semiconductor layer (item 28). Id. Moreover, even though the dislocation blocking structure (item 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 34 of 81
35

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

16C) is separated from the p-type contact semiconductor layer (item 28) by another semiconductor 

layer (item 18), the specification nonetheless describes the dislocation blocking structure (item 

16C) as embedded in the p-type contact semiconductor layer (item 28). Id.

The meaning of embedded that appears in the above discussion of Fig. 7 is consistent with 

the Court’s construction. Fig. 7 and the associated discussion show that a semiconductor layer can 

be described as embedded in an adjacent semiconductor layer. Correspondingly, the Court’s 

construction specifies that a p-type and/or a n-type contact semiconductor layer includes a 

semiconductor sublayer which, as discussed above, means that the contact semiconductor layer 

can adjoin the semiconductor sublayer. Therefore, the Court’s construction of the claim term is 

entirely consistent with the specification.

Second, Defendants’ proposed construction is: “a sublayer that includes dislocations that 

reduce stress and is surrounded by the layer it is incorporated into.” Resp. Br. at 7. The Court does 

not adopt Defendants’ proposed construction because the construction describes the 

semiconductor sublayer as “surrounded by the layer it is incorporated into,” which is inconsistent 

with the specification and claims. Id. (emphasis added). As discussed above, the ’496 Patent states 

that the p-type or n-type contact semiconductor layer includes the semiconductor sublayer. See, 

e.g., ’496 Patent at Cl. 1. The meaning and scope of “includes” is broader than “surrounded by,” 

so to use “surrounded by” in a construction of the claim term would improperly narrow the scope 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 35 of 81
36

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

of the claim term, and thus the claim. Fig. 5 of the ’496 Patent elucidates the meaning of 

“includes.” 

Fig. 5 above depicts a light emitting heterostructure (item 12A). Id. at 6:45-46. The light 

emitting heterostructure (item 12A) is comprised of multiple semiconductor layers (items 14, 16A, 

18). One side of the partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer (item 18) has an interface 

(item 20) with a semiconductor layer called a “dislocation blocking structure” (item 16A). Id. at 

6:45-49, 7:23. Because the partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer (item 18) is the 

topmost semiconductor layer of the entire light emitting heterostructure (item 12A), the partially 

relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer (item 18) does not interface with any semiconductor 

layer other than the dislocation blocking structure (item 16A). 

Critically, the specification describes the light emitting semiconductor structure (item 12A) 

to “include,” inter alia, the “partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer” (item 18). Id. at 

6:46-50. As such, the specification illustrates that the semiconductor layers of a semiconductor 

structure (item 12A) can be said to “include” a partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor 

layer (item 18), even if the partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer” (item 18) is the 

topmost semiconductor layer that interfaces with only one other semiconductor layer.

By contrast, if the specification’s description of Fig. 5 used “surrounded by” instead of 

“include,” then the partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer (item 18) could not be the 

topmost of all the semiconductor layers in the semiconductor structure (item 12A). Rather, the 

partially relaxed p-type contact semiconductor layer (item 18) could only be sandwiched within or 

between one of the other semiconductor layers. 

In sum, the ’496 Patent’s specification wholly supports the Court’s construction. 

Moreover, the specification demonstrates that a hypothetical first semiconductor layer embedded

in a hypothetical second semiconductor layer could mean that the first and second layers are 

adjacent to one another. 

iii. Prosecution History

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 36 of 81
37

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Defendants assert that during prosecution, “the applicant disclaimed an interpretation of 

‘embedded’ that embraced a [first semiconductor] layer that would be adjacent to [a second 

semiconductor layer] rather than surrounded” by the second semiconductor layer. Resp. Br. at 8

(emphasis added). However, the Court does not find that prosecution disclaimer applies here.

Prosecution disclaimer precludes “patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation 

specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.” Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1323. For 

prosecution disclaimer to attach, “the disavowal must be both clear and unmistakable.” 

Massachusetts Institute of Tech, 839 F.3d at 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Where the alleged disavowal 

is ambiguous, or even amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, we have declined to find 

prosecution disclaimer.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Prosecution disclaimer does not 

apply . . . if the applicant simply describes features of the prior art and does not distinguish the 

claimed invention based on those features.” Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1342 

(Fed. Cir. 2012). 

During prosecution, the examiner relied upon the Kang, Yan, and Chua references to reject 

as obvious the claims that became claims 1 and 7 in the ’496 Patent. ECF No. 58-1, Ex. 4 at 7. The 

examiner stated that Yan disclosed a partially relaxed sublayer, otherwise referenced as a 

“relaxation enhancement layer” by the Yan reference. Id. at 8. The examiner concluded that it 

would be obvious to incorporate Yan’s partially relaxed sublayer into any of Kang’s

semiconductor layers such that Kang’s semiconductor layer would surround Yan’s partially 

relaxed sublayer. Id. The examiner also stated that Kang as modified by Yan disclosed all of the 

claim limitations except a dislocation blocking structure with a graded composition. Id. However, 

the examiner found that Chua taught such a dislocation blocking structure. Id. at 9. 

In response to the examiner’s rejection, the applicant stated that the “relaxation 

enhancement layer [] of Yan would be [] a separate layer, not [] a sub-layer within any of the 

layers of Kang’s light emitting structure.” ECF No. 58-1, Ex. 3 at 13. The applicant’s conclusory 

statement forms the basis of Defendants’ prosecution disclaimer argument. However, Defendants 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 37 of 81
38

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

fail to contextualize the applicant’s statement, which appeared after the applicant merely described 

multiple features of Yan’s relaxation enhancement layer. Specifically, the applicant described

features such as: “Yan teaches [] that the relaxation enhancement layer [] can be a single layer or 

multiple layers,” id. at 13; “Yan discusses that the relaxation enhancement layer [] has a lattice 

constant that is either larger than the strain balancing layer . . . or smaller than the underlying 

electron injection layer,” id.; and “Yan teaches . . . that the relaxation enhancement layer [] can be 

grown on the electron injection layer,” id. However, the applicant did not distinguish the claimed 

invention based on any of the aforementioned features of Yan’s relaxation enhancement layer. 

Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Grober, the applicant’s statement does not give rise to 

prosecution disclaimer. In Grober, the Federal Circuit held that “[p]rosecution disclaimer does not 

apply . . . if the applicant simply describes features of the prior art and does not distinguish the 

claimed invention based on those features.” 686 F.3d at 1342.

Therefore, prosecution history supports the notion that the partially relaxed sublayer can be 

described as “embedded” in another semiconductor layer, even if the partially relaxed sublayer is 

adjacent to the other semiconductor layer.

b. Summary

The intrinsic evidence, such as the claim language, patent specification, and prosecution 

history all support the Court’s construction of the claim term “embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer” in claims 1, 4, 7, and 12 of the ’496 Patent as “the p-type contact semiconductor layer 

and/or the n-type contact semiconductor layer includes a semiconductor sublayer that includes 

dislocations that reduce stress.”

The Court need not consider extrinsic evidence because the meaning of the claim term 

“embedded partially relaxed sublayer” is resolvable by reliance on intrinsic evidence. If the 

meaning of a claim term “can be resolved from the intrinsic evidence alone, we need not rely on 

any extrinsic evidence.” Pickholtz, 284 F.3d at 1373. “Relying on extrinsic evidence to construe a 

claim is proper only when the claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after consideration of 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 38 of 81
39

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

the intrinsic evidence.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc., 256 F.3d at 1332 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

3. “dislocation blocking structure”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Should this element not be found to be a 

means-plus-function limitation (as asserted 

by Plaintiff), the proposed construction is: 

“an epitaxially grown semiconductor layer 

having substantially fewer dislocations at a 

first side than at a second side”;

or

Should the claim term be a means-plusfunction claim (as asserted by Defendants), 

the only possible functional language is 

“dislocation blocking,” which requires no 

construction. Corresponding structures are 

disclosed at 8:1-4; 8:4-8; 8:9-19; 8:20-23; 

8:37-41; 9:4-20; 9:21-40; 9:55-60; 10:2-11; 

10:20-11:3; 11:4-21; 11:51-61; Figs. 7, 8, 

9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B, and 14, as 

well as equivalents thereof. The dislocation 

blocking structure includes a graded 

composition that changes from a first side 

of the dislocation blocking structure to a 

second side thereof.

This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).

Function: blocking dislocations. 

Structure: a layer including alternating compressive 

and tensile sublayers, as disclosed in the 

specification at 8:1-9, 8:20-23, 8:37-41, 9:4-40, 

9:55-60, 10:2-11, 10:20-11:3, and 11:51-61 and 

Figs. 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B, and 14.

The claim term “dislocation blocking structure” appears in claims 1, 7, and 12.

At the claim construction hearing, Plaintiff conceded that Defendants’ proposed 

construction is correct and adopted Defendants’ proposed construction. Thus, the Court adopts 

Defendants’ proposed construction, and construes the claim term “dislocation blocking structure” 

in claims 1, 7, and 12 of the ’496 Patent as a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. §

112(6). The function is blocking dislocations. The structure is a layer including alternating 

compressive and tensile sublayers, as disclosed in the specification at 8:1-9, 8:20-23, 8:37-41, 9:4-

40, 9:55-60, 10:2-11, 10:20-11:3, and 11:51-61 and Figs. 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B, and 

14.

4. “graded composition”

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 39 of 81
40

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“The composition of the dislocation 

blocking structure changes across its

thickness”

“Composition that gradually and monotonically 

changes from one side to the opposite side”

The phrase “graded composition” appears in claims 1, 7, and 12 of the ’496 Patent. Claim 

1 of the ’496 Patent recites:

1. A heterostructure comprising:

a substrate;

a buffer layer adjacent to the substrate;

a light generating structure having a first side and a second side, 

wherein the substrate is transparent to light generated by the light 

generating structure;

and n-type contact semiconductor layer located on the first side of the 

light generating structure;

a p-type contact semiconductor layer located on the second side of the 

light generating structure, wherein at least one of the contact 

semiconductor layers includes an embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer, and wherein at least one of the contact semiconductor layers 

is located between the light generating structure and the buffer layer; 

and

a dislocation blocking structure located between the partially relaxed

sublayer and the light generating structure, wherein the dislocation 

blocking structure includes a graded composition that changes from 

a first side of the dislocation blocking structure to a second side 

thereof. 

’496 Patent at Cl. 1 (emphasis added).

Claim 7 of the ’496 Patent recites:

7. A device comprising:

a mesa structure including:

a substrate;

a buffer layer adjacent to the substrate;

a light generating structure having a first side and a second side, 

wherein the substrate is transparent to light generated by the light 

generating structure;

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 40 of 81
41

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

an n-type contact semiconductor layer located on the first side of the 

light generating structure;

a p-type contact semiconductor layer located on the second side of the 

light generating structure, wherein at least one of the contact 

semiconductor layers includes an embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer, and wherein at least one of the contact semiconductor layers 

is located between the light generating structure and the buffer layer; 

and

wherein the at least one of the contact semiconductor layers further 

includes a dislocation blocking structure located between the partially 

relaxed sublayer and the light generating structure, and wherein the 

dislocating blocking structure includes a graded composition that 

changes from a first side of the dislocation blocking structure to a 

second side thereof. 

’496 Patent at Cl. 7 (emphasis added).

Claim 12 of the ’496 Patent recites:

12. A method comprising:

forming a heterostructure, the heterostructure comprising:

a substrate;

a buffer layer adjacent to the substrate;

a light generating structure having a first side and a second side, 

wherein the substrate is transparent to light generated by the light 

generating structure;

an n-type contact semiconductor layer located on the first side of the 

light generating structure;

a p-type contact semiconductor layer located on the second side of the 

light generating structure, wherein at least one of the contact 

semiconductor layers includes an embedded partially relaxed 

sublayer, and wherein the at least one of the contact semiconductor 

layers is located between the light generating structure and the buffer 

layer; and

a dislocation blocking structure located between the partially relaxed 

sublayer and the light generating structure, wherein the dislocation 

blocking structure includes a graded composition that changes from 

a first side of the dislocation blocking structure to a second side 

thereof. 

’496 Patent at Cl. 12 (emphasis added).

Plaintiff argues that “graded composition” should be construed to mean: “The composition 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 41 of 81
42

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

of the dislocation blocking structure changes across its thickness.” Opening Br. at 12. Defendants 

argue that the claim term should be construed to mean: “Composition that gradually and 

monotonically changes from one side to the opposite side.” Resp. Br. at 12.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts Plaintiff’s proposed construction. Thus, 

the Court construes the claim term “graded composition” to mean “the composition of the 

dislocation blocking structure changes across its thickness.” 

a. Intrinsic Evidence

As always, claim construction begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence, 

Gillette Co., 405 F.3d at 1370, and “gives primacy to the language of the claims,” Tempo Lighting, 

Inc., 742 F.3d at 977. 

Thus, the Court addresses: (1) how the claim language and specification support the 

Court’s construction; (2) Defendants’ criticisms of the construction the Court adopts; and (3) the 

prosecution history. 

i. Claim Language and Specification

First, the claim language and specification support the Court’s construction. For instance, 

claim 1 discloses that “the dislocation blocking structure includes a graded composition.” ’496 

Patent at Cl. 1. Similarly, the specification states that “the dislocation blocking structure [] can 

have a graded composition.” Id. at 8:38-39. Thus, the Court’s construction begins by referencing 

the “composition of the dislocation blocking structure.” 

Furthermore, claim 1 specifies that the dislocation blocking structure has a “composition

that changes from a first side of the dislocation blocking structure to a second side thereof.” Id. at 

Cl. 1. Likewise, Fig. 7 below depicts a dislocation blocking structure (item 16C) that has “a 

graded composition of aluminum,” wherein the molar fraction of the aluminum changes from the 

bottom side of the dislocation blocking structure to the top side of the dislocation blocking 

structure. Id. at 8:38-41. Thus, Fig. 7 suggests that a semiconductor layer with a graded 

composition means that the composition changes across the vertical dimension of the layer, or in 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 42 of 81
43

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

other words, from the bottom of the layer to the top of the layer. Similarly, the specification 

describes a semiconductor layer wherein physical characteristics of the layer change between “the 

bottom” of the layer and “the top” of the layer. Id. at 5:7-9. Because the ’496 Patent only depicts 

and discusses semiconductor structures composed of semiconductor layers that are vertically 

stacked, each semiconductor layer can be described to have a top side and a bottom side.

Also, the specification discusses a property of semiconductor layers called the lattice 

constant, which changes with the degree to which a semiconductor layer or part of a layer is 

“relaxed.” Id. at 6:1-11. The specification gives an example wherein a semiconductor layer is 

unrelaxed on either the top or bottom side of the layer and partially relaxed on the opposite side of 

the layer. Id. at 6:17-19. The specification acknowledges that “[i]n this case, the lattice constant 

may change through the layer thickness.” Id. at 6:19-20 (emphasis added). As the lattice constant 

is associated with a semiconductor layer’s degree of relaxation, the lattice constant changes from 

the unrelaxed top/bottom side of the layer to the opposite partially relaxed side of the layer. 

Consequently, a layer’s “thickness” is defined as the region between the bottom side of the 

semiconductor layer and the top side of the semiconductor layer (or vice versa). 

Thus, the claims and specification support the Court’s construction of “graded 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 43 of 81
44

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

composition” to mean that “the composition of the dislocation blocking structure changes across 

its thickness.”

ii. Defendants’ Criticism of the Construction the Court Adopts

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed construction, which the Court adopts, of the 

claim term “graded composition” impermissibly renders “graded” superfluous. Resp. Br. at 13. 

Specifically, Defendants contend that the Court construes “graded” as “changing across the 

thickness,” which is redundant because the claims already require that the composition of the 

dislocation blocking structure “changes from a first side . . . to a second side.” Id.; ’496 Patent at 

Cl. 1. Defendants further argue that the Plaintiff’s construction, which the Court adopts, ignores 

the fact that the term “graded” in the claim term “graded composition” requires a “gradual

variation” or “gradual change” in the composition of the dislocation blocking structure. Resp. Br. 

at 12 (emphasis added). The Court disagrees. 

Defendants concede that “the specification does not provide an explicit definition of 

‘graded.’” Id. None of the ’496 Patent’s claims require that the dislocation blocking structure’s 

composition gradually change. Also, the ’496 Patent’s specification mentions “gradual” or any of 

the lexemes of “gradual” (such as gradually, gradualness, and so on) only twice, both times in the 

context of gradual changes in stress, not composition as required in the patent. ’496 Patent at 9:34-

40 (“[T]he stress can gradually change between adjacent layers . . . .”); id. (“[S]tresses can . . . 

gradually change from period to period.”). 

Defendants cite two passages from the ’496 Patent’s specification to support Defendants’ 

view that “graded” requires a gradual variation in the composition of the dislocation blocking 

structure. Resp. Br. at 12. The Court addresses each passage in turn. 

The first passage states that “the stress can gradually change between adjacent layers (e.g., 

by growing layers having a graded tensile or compressive stress).” ’496 Patent at 9:34-36 

(emphasis added). The Court finds that the first passage is inapposite because the passage speaks 

only of gradual change in the context of layer stress, not layer composition. Id. Nevertheless, even 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 44 of 81
45

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

assuming arguendo that the first passage is applicable here, the Court cannot construe the claim 

term to require that the composition of the dislocation blocking structure gradually change across 

the dislocation blocking structure’s thickness. To do so would constitute a cardinal sin of patent 

law because “it is improper to read a limitation from the specification into the claims.” Microsoft 

Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, claims 1, 7, and 12 

(the claims relevant to the construction of “graded composition”) make no mention of the nature 

by which the dislocation blocking structure’s “graded composition” changes across the thickness 

of the dislocation blocking structure. Thus, “this court will not countenance the importation of 

claim limitations from a few specification statements or figures in the claims.” Computer Docking 

Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The second passage states:

Additionally, the light generating heterostructure 12D is shown 

including a graded layer 60 located between the dislocation blocking 

structure 16D and the light generating structure 14. The graded layer 

60 can be configured to further reduce stresses in the light generating 

structure 14. For example, the graded layer 60 can comprise a 

composition that varies from a composition of an adjacent layer, such 

as the dislocation blocking structure 16D, located on one side, to a 

composition of the light generating structure 14 located on the 

opposite side. The composition grading can be linear or parabolic, 

with a grading gradient selected to minimize stresses and/or maximize 

polarization doping. While the graded layer 60 is shown implemented 

on the n-type side of the light generating structure 14, it is understood 

that a graded light can be included on the p-type side of the light 

generating structure 14. 

’496 Patent at 11:62-12:5. Defendants cite this second passage to support their view that 

“graded” requires gradual variation of the composition of the dislocation blocking structure. Resp. 

Br. at 12. Yet, the second passage never links “graded” to “gradual variation.” In fact, the second 

passage does not even mention “gradual variation.” Thus, the second passage does not support 

Defendants’ argument that the composition of the dislocation blocking structure gradually change 

across the dislocation blocking structure’s thickness. Resp. Br. at 12.

As such, the ’496 Patent does not limit how the graded composition of the dislocation 

blocking structure varies across the thickness of the dislocation blocking structure. As discussed 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 45 of 81
46

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

above, the Court rejects Defendants’ attempts to require that the graded composition vary 

gradually across the thickness of the dislocation blocking structure. In addition, claims 1, 7, and 

12 (all the claims implicated in the construction of the claim term “graded composition”) state that 

the “graded composition . . . changes from a first side of the dislocation blocking structure to a 

second side thereof,” but do not specify the manner in which the graded composition changes 

across the thickness of the dislocation blocking structure. ’496 Patent at Cls. 1, 7, 12. 

Similarly, the ’496 Patent does not limit the ways in which the graded composition can 

vary across the thickness of the dislocation blocking structure. For example, the ’496 Patent’s 

specification states that the “composition grading can be linear or parabolic.” Id. at 12:4-5. Other 

passages from the specification are less explicit and do not discuss the nature of the composition 

grading. See, e.g., id. at 12:29-32 (“[A] graded junction refers to any graded layer that is inserted 

between two layers of different composition where the composition of the graded layer transitions 

from the first layer to the second layer.”); id. at 8:38-41 (“[T]he dislocation blocking structure [] 

can have a graded composition of aluminum with the molar fraction changing” across the 

thickness of the dislocation blocking structure). However, the Court does not define the 

composition grading of the dislocation blocking structure to be linear or parabolic because it is 

“improper to read a limitation from the specification into the claims.” Microsoft Corp., 357 F.3d at

1347.

Nevertheless, Defendants contend that “‘linear’ and ‘parabolic’ gradients are gradual and 

monotonic changes that meet Defendants’ proposed construction.” Resp. Br. at 13. As support for 

Defendants’ proposition, Defendants reference page 72 of Exhibit B to the declaration of 

Defendants’ expert Dr. Russell Dupuis in support of Defendants’ responsive claim construction 

brief. Id. However, Federal Circuit law is unequivocal that “if the meaning of the claim limitation 

is apparent from the intrinsic evidence alone, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.” Bell 

Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268-69. The Court’s discussion of the claims and specification, which are 

intrinsic evidence, demonstrates that the meaning of the claim term “graded composition” can be 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 46 of 81
47

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

discerned from sole reliance on the intrinsic evidence. Thus, the Court need not, and in fact may 

not per Bell Atlantic, turn to extrinsic sources such as Dr. Dupuis’ declaration for clarification. 

However, even if the Court were to consider Dr. Dupuis’ declaration, the Court would still 

reject Defendants’ proposed construction. According to Dr. Dupuis’ declaration, Exhibit B is a 

“true and correct copy of excerpts from E. Fred Schubert, Light-Emitting Diodes (2d ed. 2006).” 

ECF No. 61 at ¶ 4. Page 72 of Exhibit B does indeed discuss “parabolic grading.” ECF No. 61-2 at 

72. However, on page 72, there is no mention of “gradual and monotonic changes,” no mention of 

“linear and parabolic gradients,” and no mention of “composition grading.” Id. Thus, page 72 of 

Exhibit B does not support Defendants’ proposed construction that the composition “gradually and 

monotonically changes from one side to the opposite site.” 

iii. Prosecution History

Defendants argue that the prosecution history, and more precisely, the Chua reference, is 

proof that the term “‘graded’ requires a gradual change” of the dislocation blocking structure’s 

composition. Resp. Br. at 12 (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues that Defendants misinterpret Chua. 

Reply at 9. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. 

The Chua reference discloses a mixed alloy region “comprised of a continuum of 

alternating layers of a higher percentage of AlN (again, an ‘AlN layer’) and a high percentage of 

GaN (and again, a ‘GaN layer’). The thicknesses of the AlN layers gradually decrease from one 

AlN/GaN pair to the next.” ECF No. 62-9 at [0014]. Thus, Chua discloses that the thicknesses of 

the AlN layers gradually decrease. Although Chua discloses that the “average [aluminum] content 

of the defect redirection region decreases,” id., Chua is inapposite because Chua does not disclose 

that the average aluminum content gradually decreases. 

In sum, the Chua reference does not disclose a “gradual change” of the dislocation 

blocking structure’s composition.

b. Summary

The intrinsic evidence, such as the claim language, patent specification, and prosecution 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 47 of 81
48

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

history, all support the Court’s construction of the claim term “graded composition” in claims 1, 7, 

and 12 of the ’496 Patent as “the composition of the dislocation blocking structure changes across 

its thickness.”

The Court need not consider extrinsic evidence because the meaning of the claim term 

“graded composition” is resolvable by reliance on intrinsic evidence. If the meaning of a claim 

term “can be resolved from the intrinsic evidence alone, we need not rely on any extrinsic 

evidence.” Pickholtz, 284 F.3d at 1373. “Relying on extrinsic evidence to construe a claim is 

proper only when the claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after consideration of the 

intrinsic evidence.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc., 256 F.3d at 1332 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

’468 Patent

1. Overview of the ’468 Patent

The ’468 Patent is entitled “Light Emitting Device with Dislocation Bending Structure.” 

Dislocations are defects in the crystal structure of a semiconductor layer that can propagate 

through multiple layers. See, e.g., ’468 Patent at 4:12-16. Dislocations affect the electrical, 

physical, and mechanical properties of the crystalline solids that comprise semiconductor layers. 

For instance, dislocations can reduce the light emission of light emitting devices such as light 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 48 of 81
49

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

emitting diodes and laser diodes. Id. at 1:28-29, 2:23-24. The goal of the ’468 Patent is to reduce 

dislocations in active regions of emitting devices by introducing a dislocation bending structure 

into the structure of an emitting device. A dislocation bending structure can be configured to cause 

dislocations “to bend and/or annihilate prior to reaching the active region.” Id. at 2:30-34. 

Moreover, a dislocation bending structure “can include a plurality of layers with adjacent layers 

being composed of a material, but with molar fractions of an element in the respective material 

differing between the two layers. The dislocation bending structure can include at least forty pairs 

of adjacent layers having molar fractions of an element differing by at least five percent between 

the adjacent layers.” Id. at 2:35-41. Fig. 2 of the ’468 Patent is illustrative. 

Fig. 2 above is illustrative of the structure of a light emitting diode or a laser diode. Id. at 

3:65-4:2. While the emitting device (item 10) is operating, an active region (item 20) of the 

emitting device (item 10) emits electromagnetic radiation of potentially many different 

wavelengths, such as visible light, ultraviolet radiation, or infrared light. Id. at 4:2-8. The emitting 

device (item 10) can be comprised of a substrate (item 12), a nucleation layer (item 14), a buffer 

layer (item 16), an n-type cladding layer (item 18), an active region (item 20), a p-type blocking 

layer (item 22), and a p-type cladding layer (item 24). Id. at 4:9-12. 

The emitting device (item 10) depicted in Fig. 2 also contains a dislocation bending 

structure (item 26) located between the substrate (item 12) and the active region (item 20). Id. at 

4:19-21. As aforementioned, the dislocation bending structure can cause dislocations originating 

from the substrate (item 12) to bend or partially annihilate due to strain before the dislocations 

propagate to the active region (item 20). Id. at 2:30-34, 4:21-24. The dislocation bending structure 

(item 26) can be comprised of multiple layers, wherein layers of the dislocation bending structure 

(item 26) can vary in material composition. Id. at 4:26-28. Such layers in the dislocation bending 

structure (item 26) can also be periodic. Id. at 4:33-36. For instance, each period can be composed 

of “two layers of different [material] compositions.” Id. The dislocation bending structure (item 

26) could comprise multiple periods. Id.

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 49 of 81
50

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

The parties request construction of two terms: (1) “[t]he difference in the molar fractions is 

selected on a thickness of at least one of the first layer or the second layer” (found in claim 14); 

and (2) “[t]he material” (found in claim 26). Below, the Court addresses each claim term in turn.

2. “the difference in the molar fractions is selected based on a thickness of at least 

one of the first layer or the second layer”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

The claim term “the difference in the molar fractions is selected based on a thickness of at 

least one of the first layer or the second layer” appears in claim 14. Claim 14 depends from 

independent claim 11.

Claim 14 of the ’468 Patent recites:

14. The emitting device of claim 11, wherein the difference in the 

molar fractions is selected based on a thickness of at least one of 

the first layer or the second layer.

’468 Patent at Cl. 14 (emphasis added).

Claim 11 of the ’468 Patent recites:

11. An emitting device comprising:

a substrate;

an active region located on a first side of the substrate; and 

a dislocation bending structure located between the substrate and the 

active region, wherein the dislocation bending structure comprises a 

means for causing at least some dislocations propagating from the 

substrate to at least one of: bend or annihilate, prior to reaching the 

active region, and wherein the means for causing includes a plurality 

of non-overlapping periods, wherein each period includes:

a first layer composed of a material including an element; and

a second layer composed of a material including the element, wherein 

a molar fraction of the element differs for the first layer and the second 

layer by at least five percent. 

’468 Patent at Cl. 11.

Plaintiff proposes the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term “the difference in the 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 50 of 81
51

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

molar fractions is selected based on a thickness of at least one of the first layer or the second 

layer.” Opening Br. at 15. Defendants argue that claim 14 is indefinite. Resp. Br. at 16. For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with Defendants and concludes that claim 14 is 

indefinite. 

i. Indefiniteness

Defendants argue that claim 14 is indefinite because claim 14, which “recites the emitting 

device of claim 11,” depends from claim 11, but claim 14 adds a step that is “highly uncertain.” 

Resp. Br. at 15. Moreover, Defendants argue that claim 14 is indefinite because what is claimed 

are functions or features of the product without any information on how to make the product. Id.

On the other hand, Plaintiff argues that claim 14 is not indefinite and is a proper product-byprocess claim wherein the claim recites “a process for making a product.” Opening Br. at 14-15. 

Plaintiff also asserts that the primary case upon which Defendants rely, In re Downing, 754 Fed. 

App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018), is inapposite. Reply at 10-11. Defendants have the more compelling 

argument. 

In the seminal case on indefiniteness, the United States 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.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. Claim language that employs a “term of 

degree” is not inherently indefinite. Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370. Nonetheless, the patent 

must provide “some standard for measuring that degree” so that the claim language provides 

“enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention” in the form of 

“objective boundaries.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1378, 1381 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 569 (2015). Claim language that includes a term of degree is 

indefinite if the claim language is “highly subjective,” lacks “objective boundaries,” or depends on 

the “unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion.” See, e.g., Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 

1371. Below, the Court first explains how the claim term is a term of degree, and then discusses 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 51 of 81
52

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

how the term of degree renders claim 14 indefinite.

First, the Court finds that the claim term “the difference in the molar fractions is selected 

based on a thickness of at least one of the first layer or the second layer” is a term of degree. 

Admittedly, the Court has yet to find a clear, unambiguous Federal Circuit pronouncement 

defining “term of degree.” Nevertheless, there are sufficient numbers of Federal Circuit opinions, 

upon which the Court relies, to buttress this Court’s conclusion that the claim term is a term of 

degree. 

For example, the Federal Circuit stated that “purified” is a “term of degree” because 

“‘purified’ . . . inherently requires an evaluation of that degree in order to be defined precisely.” 

Evans Med. Ltd. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 215 F.3d 1347, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Analogously, in the 

instant case, the claim term requires evaluations of the thicknesses of the first and second layers, 

the selected difference of the molar fractions, and the relationship between layer thickness and the 

difference in the molar fractions, before the claim term can be defined with precision.

Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that “reduced area of contact” is a term of degree 

because “reduced area of contact . . . necessarily calls for a comparison against some baseline,” 

such as “what the area of contact has been reduced from.” Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United 

States, 835 F.3d 1388, 1395-96 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). Likewise, here, the claim 

term “the difference in the molar fractions is selected based on a thickness of at least one of the 

first layer or the second layer” also calls for a comparison against a baseline because the claim 

term raises the questions of: the amount of difference that exists in the molar fractions; the 

relationship between the difference in molar fractions and the thicknesses of the first and second 

layers; who selects the difference in the molar fractions; and what the criteria are for the selection 

of the difference in molar fractions.

In addition, the Federal Circuit appeal in Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

concerned a patent claiming a process for curing fresh tobacco that reduces the amount of 

carcinogens in cured tobacco produced during the curing process. 537 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 52 of 81
53

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

2008). Fresh tobacco must be cured before the tobacco is ready for consumption, such as in 

cigarettes. Id. Microbes are present on tobacco undergoing curing. Id. Such microbes normally 

operate under aerobic conditions, which means that the microbes “consume oxygen in the 

atmosphere for their energy source.” Id. at 1372. However, the curing process reduces the amount 

of ambient atmospheric oxygen available so that the microbes must operate under anaerobic 

conditions (i.e., without consuming ambient atmospheric oxygen). Id. at 1361. Microbes operating 

under anaerobic conditions produce the carcinogens that the Star Scientific patent seeks to reduce, 

whereas microbes operating aerobically do not produce such carcinogens. Id. Thus, the patent 

claims, inter alia, that tobacco is cured in a “controlled environment” with “an airflow sufficient 

to substantially prevent an anaerobic condition.” Id. at 1364. 

The Federal Circuit held that the claim term “anaerobic condition” is a “term of degree 

because its bounds depend on the degree of oxygen deficiency” in the claimed controlled 

environment. Id. at 1372. In other words, “anaerobic condition” is a term of degree because 

whether an “anaerobic condition” exists depends on the “degree of oxygen deficiency,” a 

measurable property. Id. Analogously, here, the claim term is also a term of degree. Specifically, 

like in Star Scientific, the degree of the “difference in the molar fractions” is determined based 

upon a measurable property: the thicknesses of either or both of the first layer and second layer 

that are selected.

In sum, in view of the analogous and controlling Federal Circuit opinions above, the claim 

term “the difference in the molar fractions is selected based on a thickness of at least one of the 

first layer or the second layer” is a term of degree.

Second, the Court finds that the claim term “the difference in the molar fractions is 

selected based on a thickness of at least one of the first layer or the second layer” renders claim 14 

indefinite because terms of degree that depend on the “unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s 

opinion” are indefinite. Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 137. Here, the intrinsic evidence fails to 

disclose any criteria for how one might “select” a thickness of either or both of the layers, ’468 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 53 of 81
54

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Patent at Cl. 14, as to affect the molar fraction of an element within the composition of the first or 

second layers, id. at Cl. 11. Therefore, not only is the selection of a layer thickness left up to 

opinion, the ’468 Patent’s specification lacks any “objective boundaries” for selection of the

thickness of either or both of the layers. 

Likewise, the Federal Circuit has held that the term “minimal redundancy” rendered a 

claim indefinite. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal 

Circuit so held because the evidence failed to “determine an objective boundary of ‘minimal.’” Id.

Similarly, here, the intrinsic evidence does not disclose any objective boundaries to the “difference 

in the molar fractions” and the thicknesses of the first and second layers. Therefore, claim 14 

provides no guidance as to what “difference in the molar fractions” or “thickness of at least one of

the first layer or the second layer” give rise to liability for infringing claim 14. Controlling Federal 

Circuit law states that “a claim is indefinite if a skilled artisan cannot determine if an accused 

product infringes or not.” Star Scientific, 537 F.3d at 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Therefore, the claim 

term and claim 14 of the ’468 Patent are indefinite.

Here, the Court’s indefiniteness determination only relies upon intrinsic evidence. If a 

claim is indefinite based “only on intrinsic evidence,” the Federal Circuit has held that it is 

“unnecessary to rely on . . . extrinsic evidence.” Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370 n.6. 

Therefore, the Court finds that claim 14 is indefinite and thus unenforceable.

3. “the material”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Refers back to the recitations: “a first layer 

composed of a material” and “a second 

layer composed of a material” for 

antecedent basis, i.e., the first layer and 

second layer are both aluminum gallium 

nitride

Indefinite

The claim term “the material” appears in claim 26. Claim 26 depends from independent 

claim 11.

Claim 26 of the ’468 Patent recites:

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 54 of 81
55

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

26. The emitting device of claim 11, wherein the material is 

aluminum gallium nitride and wherein the element is aluminum. 

’468 Patent at Cl. 26 (emphasis added).

Claim 11 of the ’468 Patent recites:

11. An emitting device comprising:

a substrate;

an active region located on a first side of the substrate; and 

a dislocation bending structure located between the substrate and the 

active region, wherein the dislocation bending structure comprises a 

means for causing at least some dislocations propagating from the 

substrate to at least one of: bend or annihilate, prior to reaching the 

active region, and wherein the means for causing includes a plurality 

of non-overlapping periods, wherein each period includes:

a first layer composed of a material including an element; and

a second layer composed of a material including the element, wherein 

a molar fraction of the element differs for the first layer and the second 

layer by at least five percent. 

’468 Patent at Cl. 11.

Plaintiff only addresses whether claim 26 is indefinite and does not provide a construction 

for the claim term. Opening Br. at 15. Defendants argue that the claim term is indefinite. Resp. Br. 

at 16. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with Defendants and finds that claim 26 is 

indefinite because the claim recites an indefinite claim term. 

i. Indefiniteness

A claim is “indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis.” Halliburton 

Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For a claim term to have 

antecedent basis support, an indefinite article (for instance, “a” or “an”) must precede a claim term 

the first time the claim term is used in the claims. Subsequent references in the claims to the claim 

term must be preceded by a definite article (for instance, “the” or “said”). See generally 

Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

2008) (discussing the role of indefinite and definite articles in establishing proper antecedent 

basis). Antecedent basis is necessary so that those with skill in the art can ascertain the scope of a 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 55 of 81
56

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

patent and its claimed inventions with “reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. For the 

reasons below, the Court concludes that the claim term “the material” in claim 26 lacks proper 

antecedent basis.

Claim 26 depends from independent claim 11. Antecedent basis for a claim term in a 

dependent claim, such as claim 26, may be found in the dependent claim itself. In re Downing, 

754 Fed. App’x 988, 990-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (looking for an antecedent basis for a claim term in 

the same claim in which the claim term appears). Antecedent basis can also be found in the 

independent claim from which the dependent claim depends, such as claim 11. Automed Techs., 

Inc. v. Microfil, LLC, 244 Fed. App’x 354, 359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (searching for antecedent basis for 

a dependent claim’s claim term in the independent claim from which the dependent claim 

depends). 

The claim term “the material” in claim 26 must have an antecedent basis because 

“material” is immediately preceded by the definite article “the.” Id. at 359 (“[C]laim term 

employing definite article ‘the’ . . . requir[es] an antecedent basis.”) (citing NTP, Inc. v. Research 

in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). However, claim 26 does not provide an 

antecedent basis for the claim term because claim 26 does not disclose “a material” to which the 

claim term can refer. Thus, the Court turns to independent claim 11 to determine if claim 11 

provides an antecedent basis.

Indeed, claim 11 discloses “a first layer composed of a material” and “a second layer 

composed of a material.” ’468 Patent at Cl. 11 (emphasis added). However, the appearance of an 

antecedent basis in claim 11 is wholly illusory. Claim 11 does not supply the antecedent basis for 

“the material” because claim 11 mentions “a material” twice, first in reference to “a first layer 

composed of a material,” and second in reference to “a second layer composed of a material.”

Therefore, it is ambiguous whether the claim term “the material” refers to “a first layer composed 

of a material,” or “a second layer composed of a material,” or both. 

The Federal Circuit’s opinion in Baldwin is instructive. Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 56 of 81
57

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Baldwin states that a claim limitation lacks 

antecedent basis “where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making 

reference.” Id. at 1343. For instance, “if two different levers are recited earlier in [a] claim, the 

recitation of ‘said lever’ in the same or subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain 

which of the two levers was intended.” Id. Here, akin to Baldwin’s recitation of two different 

levers, claim 11 recites two different instances of “a material,” once in relation to the composition 

of a “first layer,” and the other in relation to the composition of a “second layer.” Thus, it is 

unclear as to which of claim 11’s two recitations of “a material” is referred to by the claim term 

“the material.” Similarly, in Baldwin, “said lever” could refer to “two different levers . . . recited 

earlier in [a] claim.” Id. Thus, Baldwin concluded that there is an “indefiniteness problem.” Id.

Consequently, here, the claim term “the material” in claim 26 lacks an antecedent basis.

In an attempt to salvage claim 26 from indefiniteness, Plaintiff relies upon embodiments of 

the ’468 Patent wherein a first layer and a second layer of the semiconductor structure are 

composed of the same material. Opening Br. at 16-17. Plaintiff cites these embodiments in an 

attempt to argue that the claim term’s lack of antecedent basis does not introduce ambiguity

because the claim term, read in light of such embodiments, must refer to and define the material 

composition of both the first layer and the second layer of claim 11. Id. As a result, Plaintiff 

concludes that claim 11’s first and second layers are composed of the same material. Id.

However, Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. The ’468 Patent’s specification discloses 

other embodiments in which semiconductor layers, such as the first and second layers of claim 11, 

are composed of different materials. For instance, the ’468 Patent discloses an embodiment in 

which “the various layers . . . are formed of group III nitride based materials.” ’468 Patent at 5:55-

57. “Illustrative group III nitride materials include AlN, GaN, InN, BN, AlGaN, AlInN, AlBN, 

InGaN, ALGaInN, AlGaBN, AlInBN, and AlGaInBN . . . .” Id. at 5:61-64. Thus, in this 

embodiment, claim 11’s first layer could be composed of AlN and claim 11’s second layer could 

be composed of InGaN, which defeats Plaintiff’s argument that claim 11’s first and second layers 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 57 of 81
58

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

are necessarily composed of the same material.

In sum, because the claim term “the material” lacks any antecedent basis, claim 26 is

indefinite. See Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249 (holding that a claim is “indefinite if a [claim] term 

does not have proper antecedent basis”). 

The Court’s indefiniteness determination only relies upon intrinsic evidence. If a claim 

term is indefinite based “only on intrinsic evidence,” the Federal Circuit has held that it is 

“unnecessary to rely on . . . extrinsic evidence.” Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370 n.6. 

Therefore, the Court finds that claim 26 is indefinite and thus unenforceable.

The ’133 Patent

1. Overview of the ’133 Patent

The ’133 Patent is entitled “Group III Nitride Heterostructure for Optoelectronic Device.” 

The ’133 Patent is directed to improving the reliability of optoelectronic devices, which are light 

emitting or light detecting devices such as a light emitting diode, a laser diode, a light sensor, and 

a photodetector. ’133 Patent at 1:21-23, 3:26-30, 5:45-52. Heterostructures for use within 

optoelectronic devices can be “configured to improve the reliability of the corresponding 

optoelectronic device” by, for instance, varying the material composition of different layers in a 

heterostructure. Id. at 3:28-33. A heterostructure refers to different layers of semiconductor 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 58 of 81
59

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

material that, for instance, could be incorporated into an optoelectronic device. Id. at 5:16-21. The 

’133 Patent discloses that the reliability of an optoelectronic device can be improved if certain 

parameters of a heterostructure are simultaneously optimized. Id. at 5:16-18. “These parameters 

can include: compositional profiles of the semiconductor layers; doping profiles of the 

semiconductor layers; and thicknesses of the semiconductor layers.” The Court finds Fig. 5 

illustrative and instructive.

The layers of the heterostructure (item 10) “are formed of group III nitride based materials. 

Group III nitride materials comprise one or more group III elements (e.g., boron (B), aluminum 

(Al), gallium (Ga), and indium (In)) and nitrogen (N), such that BWAlXGaYInZN, where 0≤W, X, 

Y, Z≤1, and W+X+Y+Z=1.” Id. at 6:19-24. W, X, Y, and Z represent the molar fractions of their 

respective elements boron, aluminum, gallium, indium, and nitrogen. Id. at 6:19-25. As relevant to 

the ’133 Patent, the molar fraction of a particular element in a material is equal to the number of 

moles (a unit of measure) of that particular element in a material divided by the total number of 

moles of all the elements in the material. 

During operation of an optoelectronic device, an active structure (item 22) within the 

heterostructure (item 10) can emit electromagnetic radiation. Id. at 5:54-58. The heterostructure 

depicted in Fig. 5 includes a substrate (item 12), a buffer layer (item 14), a first superlattice 

structure (item 16), a second superlattice structure (item 18), an n-type layer (item 20), and the 

active structure (item 22). The first superlattice structure (item 16) may include multiple periods 

(items 161 to 16n). Id. at 7:12-14. Each period includes two layers (items 16A and 16B). Id. In one 

embodiment, the bottom layer of a period (item 16A) can have a higher aluminum molar fraction 

than that of the top layer (item 16B) of the period. Id. at 7:19-20. Likewise, the second superlattice 

structure (item 18) is akin to the first superlattice structure (item 16). The second superlattice 

structure can also include multiple periods (items 181 to 18n), with each period having two layers 

(items 18A and 18B) of potentially differing chemical compositions. Id. at 7:39-47.

The parties request construction of one claim term: “each period including two layers 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 59 of 81
60

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

formed of group III nitride materials . . . having molar fractions x [y] and x’ [y’], where x>x’ 

[y>y’].”

2. “each period including two layers formed of group III nitride materials . . . having 

molar fractions x [y] and x’ [y’], where x>x’ [y>y’]”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“The first [second] superlattice includes a 

repeating pattern of pairs of layers, each 

layer includes nitrogen, aluminum and 

another group III element, and the 

repeating pattern includes repeating the 

same higher/lower aluminum molar 

fraction in each pair”

Indefinite

The claim term appears in claim 19 of the ’133 Patent. 

Claim 19 of the ’133 Patent recites:

An optoelectronic device comprising:

a substrate;

a buffer layer located on the substrate, wherein the buffer layer is 

formed of a group III nitride material including aluminum;

a first superlattice structure located on the buffer layer, wherein the 

first superlattice structure is formed of a plurality of periods, each 

period including two layers formed of group III nitride materials

including aluminum and having molar fractions x and x’, where 

x>x’;

a second superlattice structure located on the first superlattice 

structure, wherein the second superlattice structure is formed of a 

plurality of periods, each period including two layers formed of 

group III nitride materials including aluminum and having molar 

fractions y and y’, where y>y’;

a n-type layer located on the second superlattice, wherein the n-type 

layer is formed of a group III nitride material nitride material 

including aluminum having a molar fraction z, and wherein 

0.1<z≤0.9; and

an active structure including quantum wells and barriers located on 

the n-type layer, wherein the quantum wells are formed of a group III 

nitride material including aluminum having a molar fraction q and the 

barriers are formed of a group III nitride material including aluminum 

having a molar fraction b, and wherein b-q>0.05.

’133 Patent at Cl. 19 (emphasis added).

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 60 of 81
61

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Plaintiff argues that the claim term should be construed to mean: “The first [second] 

superlattice includes a repeating pattern of pairs of layers, each layer includes nitrogen, aluminum 

and another group III element, and the repeating pattern includes repeating the same higher/lower 

aluminum molar fraction in each pair.” Opening Br. at 17. Defendants argue that the claim term is 

indefinite. Resp. Br. at 19.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts Defendants’ proposed construction. 

Thus, the Court finds claim 19 indefinite because the claim term is indefinite. See, e.g., Lufthansa 

Technik AG v. Astronics Advanced Elec. Sys. Corp., 711 Fed. App’x 638, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 

(finding a claim to be indefinite when a claim term recited in the claim is indefinite).

i. Indefiniteness

Defendants argue that the claim term is indefinite because the subscripts x, x’, y, and y’ are 

not defined in the claims, nor are they defined as being the molar fractions of aluminum. Resp. Br. 

at 20. The Court finds Defendants’ arguments convincing.

Claim 19 discloses that a first superlattice structure contains a plurality of periods, wherein 

each period has two semiconductor layers “formed of group III nitride materials including 

aluminum and having molar fractions x and x’ . . . .” ’133 Patent at Cl. 19. Claim 19 also discloses 

a second superlattice structure containing a plurality of periods, wherein each period including two 

layers “formed of group III nitride materials including aluminum and having molar fractions y and 

y’ . . . .” Id. It is very unclear from the text of claim 19 as to what subscripts x, x’, y, and y’ refer. 

For instance, a reasonable interpretation of claim 19 is that the subscripts refer to the molar 

fraction of a group III nitride material, or that the subscripts are associated with the period 

including two layers. 

At the July 25, 2019 claim construction hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the 

subscripts x, x’, y, and y’ refer to the molar fraction of aluminum. As support for Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s interpretation of the subscripts in claim 19, Plaintiff’s counsel directed the Court to Fig. 

5 and the ’133 Patent at 7:11-47, which is the portion of the specification that describes Fig. 5. 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 61 of 81
62

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Fig. 5 depicts a semiconductor structure that contains, inter alia, a first and a second superlattice 

structure. ’133 Patent at 6:64, 7:11-67. The specification discloses that x and x’ correspond to the 

aluminum molar fractions of two adjacent layers within a first superlattice structure. Id. at 7:19-21. 

Correspondingly, the specification discloses that y and y’ correspond to the aluminum molar 

fractions of two adjacent layers within a second superlattice structure. Id. at 7:45-47.

However, the specification is highly inconsistent with regard to how the specification 

refers to the molar fraction of aluminum. For example, the specification has referred to the molar 

fraction of aluminum as “z,” id. at 3:58-59, and “q,” id. at 3:61-62. The specification uses the 

subscripts Y, y, and y’ for the molar fraction of gallium. Id. at 6:34-36. 

It is axiomatic that courts must “avoid impermissibly importing limitations from the 

specification” into the claims. Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Moreover, a claim is indefinite if the specification lacks adequate guidance to give the claim term

a “reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language 

without an objective boundary.” Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1373. Thus, the Court cannot 

define subscripts x, x’, y, and y’ as the subscripts appear in claim 19 to represent the molar 

fraction of aluminum because doing so would impermissibly import limitations from the 

specification into the claims. Moreover, the ’133 Patent’s specification does not even consistently 

use a particular subscript to identify the molar fraction of aluminum. Thus, claim 13 is indefinite 

because the specification does not provide an exclusive definition of x, x’, y, and y’. Even if the 

specification provided exclusive definitions of the subscripts, use of such definitions would be an 

improper importation of limitations from the specification into the claim.

Here, the Court’s indefiniteness determination only relies upon intrinsic evidence. 

Nevertheless, if a claim is indefinite based “only on intrinsic evidence,” the Federal Circuit has 

held that it is “unnecessary to rely on . . . extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1370 n.6. Therefore, the Court 

finds that claim 19 is indefinite and thus unenforceable.

The ’420 Patent

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 62 of 81
63

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

1. Overview of the ’420 Patent

The ’420 Patent is entitled “Device with Transparent and Higher Conductive Regions in 

Lateral Cross Section of Semiconductor Layer.” The ’420 Patent is generally directed toward 

increasing efficiency of semiconductor emitting devices such as light emitting diodes and laser 

diodes. ’420 Patent at 1:38-45. The ’420 Patent notes that inhomogeneities in a semiconductor 

layer enable conduction channels to develop that increase the electrical conductivity through the 

semiconductor layer. Id. at 3:30-37. Moreover, regions of a semiconductor layer with high 

aluminum content “allow for low light absorption (e.g., a higher transmission coefficient).” Id. at 

3:38-40. Thus, the ’420 Patent seeks to “achieve a desired balance of higher conduction with 

reduced light absorption by tailoring semiconductor properties.” Id. at 3:40-42.

Fig. 2 is helpful for understanding the ’420 Patent. Fig. 2 depicts an emitting device (item 

10). Id. at 6:5-6. When the emitting device is operated, the active region (item 18) emits 

electromagnetic radiation. Id. at 6:11-14. The emitting device includes a heterostructure that 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 63 of 81
64

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

comprises a substrate (item 12), a buffer layer (item 14), an n-type cladding layer2(item 16), and 

an active region (item 18) with an n-type side (item 19A). Id. at 6:24-28. The heterostructure also 

includes a p-type layer3(item 20) adjacent to the p-type side (item 19B) of the active region (item 

18) as well as a p-type cladding layer (item 22) adjacent to the p-type layer (item 20). Id. at 6:29-

33.

A superlattice structure can be a layer within a heterostructure. Id. at 15:17-19. The 

superlattice structure/layer can be comprised of “periods, each of which is formed from a plurality 

of sub-layers.” Id. In an embodiment, “the p-type cladding layer [item 22] and/or the p-type 

contact [item 26] can comprise a short period superlattice lattice structure.” Id. at 7:8-10. In 

another embodiment, “the n-type cladding layer [item 16] and/or the n-type contact [item 30] can 

be formed of a short period superlattice . . . which is at least partially transparent to the 

electromagnetic radiation generated by the active region (item 18). Id. at 7:15-20. 

The parties request construction of two terms: (1) “short period superlattice” (found in 

claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14); and (2) “transparent regions” (found in claims 1 and 13). Below, the Court 

addresses each claim term in turn.

2. “short period superlattice”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“A semiconductor layer with a plurality of 

barrier sublayers alternating with a 

plurality well sublayers, where the barriers 

are thin enough to provide carrier 

movement through the layer”

“A superlattice having a few-monolayer-thick wells 

and barriers, in which the barriers are thin enough 

that carriers tunnel through them”

The claim term “short period superlattice” appears in claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14. Claims 2, 4, 

13, and 14 all depend from independent claim 1.

Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent recites:

1. A device comprising:

 

2 An n-type cladding layer can be an electron supply layer. ’420 Patent at 6:26.

3 A p-type layer can be an electron blocking layer. ’420 Patent at 6:29-30.

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 64 of 81
65

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

a short period superlattice (SPSL) semiconductor layer, wherein a 

composition of at least one barrier in the SPSL semiconductor layer 

varies along lateral dimensions of the at least one barrier such that a 

lateral cross section of the at least one barrier includes:

a set of transparent regions having a first characteristic band gap, 

wherein the set of transparent regions are at least ten percent of an 

area of the lateral cross section of the at least one barrier; and

a set of higher conductive regions having a second characteristic band 

gap at least five percent smaller than the first characteristic band gap, 

wherein the set of higher conductive regions are at least two percent 

of the area of the lateral cross section of the at least one barrier, and 

wherein lateral inhomogeneities in at least one of: the composition or 

a doping of the at least one barrier forms the set of transparent regions 

and the set of higher conductive regions.

’420 Patent at Cl. 1 (emphasis added)

Claim 2 of the ’420 Patent recites:

2. The device of claim 1, wherein the SPSL semiconductor layer 

comprises a periodic structure including a plurality of periods, 

wherein at least one of: a composition or a width of each period varies 

along the height of the SPSL semiconductor layer.

’420 Patent at Cl. 2 (emphasis added).

Claim 4 of the ’420 Patent recites:

4. The device of claim 1, wherein at least one barrier in the SPSL

semiconductor layer has a graded composition.

’420 Patent at Cl. 4 (emphasis added).

Claim 13 of the ’420 Patent recites:

13. The device of claim 1, further comprising an inhomogeneous layer 

directly adjacent to the SPSL semiconductor layer, wherein the 

inhomogeneous layer includes a plurality of transparent regions and 

a plurality of higher conductive regions. 

’420 Patent at Cl. 13 (emphasis added).

Claim 14 of the ’420 Patent recites:

14. The device of claim 1, further comprising a semiconductor layer 

having a graded composition directly adjacent to the SPSL

semiconductor layer. 

’420 Patent at Cl. 14 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff argues that the claim term “short period superlattice” should be construed to 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 65 of 81
66

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

mean: “A semiconductor layer with a plurality of barrier sublayers alternating with a plurality well 

sublayers, where the barriers are thin enough to provide carrier movement through the layer.”

Opening Br. at 19. Defendants argue that the claim term should be construed to mean: “[A]

superlattice having a few-monolayer-thick wells and barriers, in which the barriers are thin enough 

that carriers tunnel through them.” Resp. Br. at 21.

However, before the Court engages with the merits, the Court must address two closely 

related threshold issues: (1) that Plaintiff’s proposed construction in Plaintiff’s claim construction 

briefing differs in part from Plaintiff’s proposed construction in the joint claim construction 

statement; and (2) the reason the Court uses the proposed construction from Plaintiff’s claim 

construction briefing, not from the joint claim construction statement.

Plaintiff’s proposed construction in the joint claim construction statement is: “A 

semiconductor layer with a plurality of barrier sublayers alternating with a plurality well 

sublayers, where the combined thickness of a barrier and well is short (thin).” ECF No. 55 at 9. 

Plaintiff’s proposed construction in Plaintiff’s claim constructing briefing is: “A semiconductor 

layer with a plurality of barrier sublayers alternating with a plurality well sublayers, where the 

barriers are thin enough to provide carrier movement through the layer.” Opening Br. at 19.

Defendants’ responsive claim construction brief acknowledges the shift in Plaintiff’s 

proposed construction, and sets forth the construction as it appears in the joint claim construction 

statement. Resp. Br. at 21. Nevertheless, Defendants have not sought to confine Plaintiff’s 

proposed construction to that which was stated in the joint claim construction statement. Indeed, 

Defendants even state that “it does not matter” which of Plaintiff’s constructions is used because 

“neither of [Plaintiff’s] constructions is correct.” Resp. Br. at 21. 

Moreover, the Court’s use of Plaintiff’s new proposed construction in Plaintiff’s claim 

construction briefing comports with the Northern District of California’s jurisprudence. In 

Rambus, the defendants’ proposed constructions of two terms at claim construction shifted from 

the constructions proposed in the joint claim construction statement. Rambus Inc. v. Hynix

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 66 of 81
67

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Semiconductor Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 946, 979-80 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The Rambus court, like this 

Court, adopted the newly-proposed constructions, even though the Rambus plaintiff was denied

the opportunity to depose the defendants’ expert on the defendants’ newly-proposed constructions; 

“such changes in position violate the spirit” of the Patent Local Rules; the defendants’ conduct 

was “not conducive to the orderly progress of [the] case”; and the defendants’ revised 

constructions would “trickle down and affect [the defendants’] construction of 42 of the 72 

disputed terms.” Id. at 980-81. The Rambus court adopted the defendants’ new constructions 

because the court was not “willing to ignore the [defendants’] arguments if they help the court to 

construe the claims in dispute.” Id. at 981. In addition, another Northern District of California 

court allowed subsequent “modifications to the parties’ proposed claim constructions” in the joint 

claim construction statement because just as in Rambus, the “modifications help[ed] the court 

construe the disputed terms.” Nomura v. YouTube, LLC, 2012 WL 6100230, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 

7, 2012) (citing Rambus, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 981). 

Likewise, here, Plaintiff’s new proposed construction helps the Court construe the claim 

term because the new construction more narrowly defines the thickness of barriers. Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s old construction in the joint claim construction statement stated that the “thickness of a 

barrier and well is short (thin),” ECF No. 55 at 9, whereas Plaintiff’s new construction in 

Plaintiff’s claim constructing briefing states that “the barriers are thin enough to provide carrier 

movement,” Opening Br. at 19. Plaintiff’s old proposed construction used “short (thin),” very 

vague terms of degree, to describe the thickness of a barrier, whereas Plaintiff’s new proposed 

construction actually states an objectively-measurable property (“thin enough to provide carrier 

movement”) to more narrowly define the thickness of the barrier.

Although Rambus and Nomura are opinions from 2008 and 2012, respectively, and the 

Patent Local Rules have since changed, the Court nonetheless views Rambus and Nomura as

persuasive authorities. The Patent Local Rules at the time of Rambus and Nomura did not 

explicitly forbid a party from modifying a proposed construction in the joint claim construction 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 67 of 81
68

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

statement. Nomura, 2012 WL 6100230, at *2 (“The [Patent Local Rules] do not speak to 

modifications to a joint claim construction statement . . . .”); Rambus, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 980 

(“The Patent Local Rules at the time the [defendants] changed their proposed claim constructions 

do not explicitly forbid this shift.”). The extant Patent Local Rules, last revised on January 17, 

2017, also do not explicitly prohibit a party from changing a proposed construction after the joint 

claim construction statement is filed. See generally Patent L.R. 4 (governing the claim 

construction process). Thus, this Court is faced with the same lack of guidance from the Patent 

Local Rules as were the Rambus and Nomura courts, which nonetheless permitted subsequent 

changes to proposed constructions in joint claim construction statements based on rationales upon 

which this Court relies. Thus, Plaintiff’s proposed construction in the claim construction briefing 

is the construction the Court identifies in the instant order as Plaintiff’s proposed construction. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s conduct is “not conducive to the orderly progress of this case, and the 

court disapproves of it.” Rambus, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 981. The Court, having addressed the two 

threshold issues, now turns to the merits of the parties’ arguments.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court partially adopts Plaintiff’s proposed 

construction. However, the Court’s construction modifies Plaintiff’s proposed construction to be 

more faithful to the intrinsic evidence. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 865 F.3d at 1376 (holding 

that courts may “adopt a definition not proposed by either party”). Therefore, the Court construes 

the claim term “short period superlattice” to mean “a semiconductor layer with a plurality of 

barriers and a plurality of wells, where the barriers are thin enough to provide carrier movement 

through the semiconductor layer.”

As always, claim construction begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence,

Gillette Co., 405 F.3d at 1370, and “gives primacy to the language of the claims,” Tempo Lighting, 

Inc., 742 F.3d at 977.

a. Intrinsic Evidence

The Court begins with a discussion of the Court’s construction and how the construction is 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 68 of 81
69

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

supported by the ’420 Patent’s claim language and specification. The Court then addresses the 

reasons why the Court does not adopt portions of Plaintiff’s proposed construction and 

Defendants’ proposed construction. 

i. Claim Language and Specification

The first portion of the Court’s construction describes the claim term “short period 

superlattice” as “a semiconductor layer with a plurality of barriers and a plurality of wells.” Claim 

1, as do claims 2, 4, 13, and 14, expressly describe the claim term as a “semiconductor layer.” See, 

e.g., ’420 Patent at Cl. 1 (“[A] short period superlattice (SPSL) semiconductor layer . . . .”); id. at 

Cl. 2 (“[T]he SPSL semiconductor layer . . . .”); id. at Cl. 4 (same); id. at Cl. 13 (same); id. at Cl. 

14 (same). Moreover, the specification is in accord. See, e.g., id. at 3:57 (“[A] short period 

superlattice (SPSL) semiconductor layer . . . .”); id. at 4:6-7 (“[A] short period superlattice (SPSL) 

semiconductor layer . . . .”). 

In addition, the parties agree that the claim term has both barriers and wells. See Opening 

Br. at 19 (“A semiconductor layer with a plurality of barrier sublayers . . . [and] a plurality [of] 

well sublayers . . . .”); Resp. Br. at 21 (“[A] superlattice having . . . wells and barriers . . . .”). The

Federal Circuit has held that if the parties’ proposed constructions or portions of the proposed 

constructions are synonymous, a court can adopt the synonymous proposed constructions or 

portions thereof without need for further explication or analysis. See, e.g., Seal-Flex, Inc. v.

Athletic Track & Court Constr., 172 F.3d 836, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (acknowledging that a court 

may adopt an agreed-upon construction without further analysis); Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. 

Surgical Corp., 2007 WL 9723326, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007) (adopting only the agreed-upon

portions of the parties’ otherwise divergent proposed constructions), aff’d, 312 Fed. App’x 326 

(Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, the Court adopts the parties’ synonymous constructions that the claim term 

has barriers and wells. Therefore, the claim language, specification, and the parties’ proposed 

constructions support the first portion of the Court’s construction: “A semiconductor layer with a 

plurality of barriers and a plurality of wells.” 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 69 of 81
70

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

The remaining portion of the Court’s construction specifies that the “barriers are thin 

enough to provide carrier movement through the semiconductor layer.” The parties’ proposed 

constructions both recognize and agree that the thinness of the barriers is a property that should be 

defined in the construction of the claim term. See Opening Br. at 19 (“[T]he barriers are thin 

enough to provide carrier movement throughout the layer.”); Resp. Br. at 21 (“[T]he barriers are 

thin enough that carriers tunnel through them.”). Courts may adopt undisputed portions of the 

parties’ proposed constructions. Applied Med. Res. Corp., 2007 WL 9723326, at *2 (adopting only 

the undisputed portions of the parties’ otherwise divergent proposed constructions). Thus, the 

Court’s construction references and defines the thinness of the barriers.

Moreover, the ’420 Patent supports the Court’s construction that barriers must “provide 

carrier movement through the semiconductor layer.” Specifically, claim 1 discloses that barriers in 

the semiconductor layer contain “higher conducive regions.” ’420 Patent at Cl. 1. Moreover, the

specification states that carriers use such higher conductivity regions (created by barriers as claim 

1 discloses) to travel through the semiconductor layer. Id. at 12:9-18. Therefore, the ’420 Patent 

supports the Court’s construction that barriers “provide carrier movement through the 

semiconductor layer.”

In sum, the ’420 Patent’s claim language and specification support the Court’s construction 

of the claim term “short period superlattice” as “a semiconductor layer with a plurality of barriers 

and a plurality of wells, where the barriers are thin enough to provide carrier movement through 

the semiconductor layer.”

ii. The Court Does Not Adopt Parts of Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Plaintiff’s proposed construction is: “A semiconductor layer with a plurality of barrier 

sublayers alternating with a plurality well sublayers, where the barriers are thin enough to provide 

carrier movement through the layer.” Opening Br. at 19. As stated above, the Court partially 

adopts Plaintiff’s proposed construction. Notably, the Court’s construction removed mention of 

barriers alternating with wells and removed mention of “sublayers” (i.e., “barrier sublayers” and 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 70 of 81
71

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

“well sublayers”). 

The Court’s construction omits mention of barriers alternating with wells because some of 

the embodiments described in the ’420 Patent do not appear to disclose barriers alternating with 

wells. For instance, multiple embodiments in the ’420 Patent describe a “short period superlattice 

(SPSL) semiconductor layer comprising a plurality of barriers,” but never mention wells or 

disclose the spatial arrangement between barriers and wells. See, e.g., ’420 Patent at 3:46-4:4, 4:5-

4:18. The Federal Circuit rejects claim constructions that “exclude[] embodiments disclosed in the 

specification” or embodiments disclosed in the figures. Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading 

Mgmt., LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1353-55 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus, the Court’s construction does not 

state that the barriers alternate with wells.

Moreover, the Court’s construction omits mention of “sublayers.” Plaintiff’s proposed 

construction mentions “barrier sublayers” and “well sublayers.” The ’420 Patent does not mention 

“sublayer(s),” but does mention “sub-layer(s)” six times, all of which appear in three consecutive 

sentences in the same paragraph. ’420 Patent at 15:19-27. None of these six references to “sublayer” appears in the context of a description of a barrier or a well. Instead, the ’420 Patent claims 

simply state “barrier” or “well.” See, e.g., id. at Cl. 1. Claim construction “gives primacy to the 

language of the claims,” Tempo Lighting, Inc. 742 F.3d at 977; thus, this Court’s construction does 

not make reference to “sublayer(s)” or “sub-layer(s).”

iii. The Court Does Not Adopt Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Defendants’ proposed construction is: “A superlattice having a few-monolayer-thick wells 

and barriers, in which the barriers are thin enough that carriers tunnel through them.” Defendants’ 

proposed construction is unsupported by intrinsic evidence. In fact, Defendants’ discussion of the 

claim term “short period superlattice” fails to cite any piece of intrinsic evidence. See generally 

Resp. Br. Quite tellingly, Defendants begin their argument in support of their proposed 

construction with a section entitled “Extrinsic evidence supports Defendants’ construction of this 

term of art.” Id. at 21.

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 71 of 81
72

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

Federal Circuit law is unequivocal that “if the meaning of the claim limitation is apparent 

from the intrinsic evidence alone, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.” Bell Atlantic, 262 

F.3d at 1268-69; see also, e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308 

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[R]eliance on extrinsic evidence to interpret claims is proper only when the 

claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after consideration of the intrinsic evidence.”); 

Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs, Inc., 152 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 

(“[W]hen the intrinsic evidence is unambiguous, it is improper for the court to rely on extrinsic 

evidence for purposes of claim construction.”). Here, Defendants fail to identify any ambiguity 

within the intrinsic evidence or fail to show that the meaning of the claim term is not apparent 

from the intrinsic evidence alone. In fact, the Court has demonstrated above that it is entirely 

possible to rely upon the ’420 Patent’s claims and specification to construe the claim term. 

Strangely, Defendants rely upon: a patent application by, among others, “some of the same 

inventors listed on the ’420 patent”; the ’496 Patent sub judice; and the ’133 Patent sub judice.

Defendants provide no explication of how any of the above sources, which do not share a common 

specification or have any relation to the ’420 Patent, pertain to the construction of the ’420 Patent. 

Resp. Br. at 22. Moreover, Defendants rely extensively upon the declaration of a technical expert, 

Dr. Russell Dupuis, in support of Defendants’ proposed construction. According to Defendants, 

Dr. Dupuis believes that “short period superlattice is a term of art that has a well-established 

meaning: a superlattice with layers only a few monolayers thick.” Id. at 23. Dr. Dupuis also asserts

that the “crucial difference” between a regular superlattice and a short period superlattice is that 

the short period superlattice “amply allows carrier tunneling through its barrier layers.” Id.

The Federal Circuit has dealt with an analogous situation in which a district court “relied 

on extrinsic evidence in the form of a declaration by [defendant’s] expert to support its 

construction.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 832 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The 

Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s construction because consideration of “extrinsic 

evidence is appropriate only when an ambiguity remains after consulting the intrinsic evidence of 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 72 of 81
73

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

record.” Id. Moreover, the Federal Circuit also found that the district court improperly used the 

extrinsic evidence to “limit claim scope.” Id.

Here, Defendants’ reliance on Dr. Dupuis is clearly inappropriate. Much like the district 

court in Storage Technology Corp., Defendants rely upon Dr. Dupuis’ expert opinions without any 

consideration of whether the intrinsic record is ambiguous. Indeed, Defendants’ proposed 

construction, which states in part that the wells and barriers of a superlattice are a “fewmonolayer-thick,” appears to have been derived from Dr. Dupuis’ opinion that “‘short period 

superlattice’ is a term of art that has a well-established meaning: a superlattice with layers only a 

few monolayers thick.” Resp. Br. at 21, 23. Similarly, Defendants’ proposed construction states in 

part that “the barriers are thin enough that carriers tunnel through them,” which also appears to 

have been derived from Dr. Dupuis’ opinion that the “crucial difference” between a regular 

superlattice and a short period superlattice is that the latter “amply allows carrier tunneling 

through its barrier layers.” Id. at 23.

In sum, Defendants’ proposed construction impermissibly relies upon extrinsic evidence 

without Defendants ever having considered whether the intrinsic record is ambiguous. Thus, the 

Court does not adopt Defendants’ proposed construction. 

b. Summary

The intrinsic evidence, such as the claim language and patent specification, all support the 

Court’s construction of the claim term “short period superlattice” in claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 of 

the ’420 Patent as “a semiconductor layer with a plurality of barriers and a plurality of wells, 

where the barriers are thin enough to provide carrier movement through the semiconductor layer.”

The Court need not consider extrinsic evidence because the meaning of the claim term 

“short period superlattice” is resolvable by reliance on intrinsic evidence. If the meaning of a 

claim term “can be resolved from the intrinsic evidence alone, we need not rely on any extrinsic 

evidence.” Pickholtz, 284 F.3d at 1373. “Relying on extrinsic evidence to construe a claim is 

proper only when the claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after consideration of the 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 73 of 81
74

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

intrinsic evidence.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc., 256 F.3d at 1332 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

3. “transparent regions”

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning, or in the 

alternative, “regions of the barrier that 

permit light at or near a target wavelength 

to pass through”

Indefinite. In the alternative: “distinct regions that 

have a transmission coefficient of at least 50% for a 

target wavelength”

The claim term “transparent regions” appear in claims 1 and 13. Claim 13 depends from 

independent claim 1.

Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent recites:

1. A device comprising:

a short period superlattice (SPSL) semiconductor layer, wherein a 

composition of at least one barrier in the SPSL semiconductor layer 

varies along lateral dimensions of the at least one barrier such that a 

lateral cross section of the at least one barrier includes:

a set of transparent regions having a first characteristic band gap, 

wherein the set of transparent regions are at least ten percent of an 

area of the lateral cross section of the at least one barrier; and

a set of higher conductive regions having a second characteristic band 

gap at least five percent smaller than the first characteristic band gap, 

wherein the set of higher conductive regions are at least two percent 

of the area of the lateral cross section of the at least one barrier, and 

wherein lateral inhomogeneities in at least one of: the composition or 

a doping of the at least one barrier forms the set of transparent 

regions and the set of higher conductive regions.

’420 Patent at Cl. 1 (emphasis added)

Claim 13 of the ’420 Patent recites:

13. The device of claim 1, further comprising an inhomogeneous layer 

directly adjacent to the SPSL semiconductor layer, wherein the 

inhomogeneous layer includes a plurality of transparent regions and 

a plurality of higher conductive regions. 

’420 Patent at Cl. 13 (emphasis added).

Plaintiff argues that the claim term “transparent regions” should be given its plain and 

ordinary meaning, or in the alternative, construed to mean: “regions of the barrier that permit light

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 74 of 81
75

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

at or near a target wavelength to pass through.” Opening Br. at 21. Defendants argue that the claim 

term is indefinite, or in the alternative, construed to mean: “distinct regions that have a 

transmission coefficient of at least 50% for a target wavelength.” Resp. Br. at 23.

Once again, Plaintiff’s proposed construction in the claim construction briefing differs 

from Plaintiff’s proposed construction in the joint claim construction statement. Plaintiff’s 

proposed construction in the joint claim construction statement is: “regions of the barrier that 

permit light at or near the wavelength produced by the device to pass through.” ECF No. 55-1 at 

25. Plaintiff’s proposed construction in the claim construction briefing is: “regions of the barrier 

that permit light at or near a target wavelength to pass through.” Note that both proposed 

constructions are alternative constructions to Plaintiff’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning 

construction, which this Court rejects.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed construction in the claim construction briefing 

should be adopted because the claim construction briefing construction is narrower than the 

construction in the joint claim construction statement. Specifically, instead of allowing some 

unspecified wavelength of the light to pass through the barrier, Plaintiff’s proposed construction in 

the claim construction briefing specifies that it is a “target wavelength” that can pass through the 

barrier. Thus, again, the Court permits subsequent modification of a proposed claim construction 

because the modified construction helps “the court to construe the claims in dispute.” Rambus, 

569 F. Supp. 2d at 981.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts Plaintiff’s alternative proposed 

construction and finds that claims 1 and 13 are not indefinite. Therefore, the Court construes the 

claim term “transparent regions” to mean “regions of the barrier that permit light at or near a target 

wavelength to pass through.” 

As always, claim construction begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence, 

Gillette Co., 405 F.3d at 1370, and “gives primacy to the language of the claims,” Tempo Lighting, 

Inc., 742 F.3d at 977.

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 75 of 81
76

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

a. Intrinsic Evidence

The Court addresses: (1) how the claim language and specification support the Court’s 

construction; (2) why the Court rejects Defendants’ alternative construction; (3) why Defendants’ 

criticisms of Plaintiff’s construction, which the Court adopts, are meritless; and (4) why claims 1 

and 13 are not indefinite. 

i. Claim Language and Specification

The Court’s construction is well-supported by the claim language and specification. For 

instance, the Court’s construction begins with a reference to “regions of the barrier.” Claim 1 

states in part that the “at least one barrier includes . . . a set of transparent regions.” ’420 Patent at 

Cl. 1. The specification is in accord. For example, the written description states that “barriers can 

include [] transparent regions.” Id. at 3:51-52. Thus, the claim language and the specification both 

support the Court’s construction that the claim term is part of the barrier. The Court’s construction 

then states that these regions of the barrier “permit light at or near a target wavelength to pass 

through.” Once again, the claim language supports this portion of the Court’s construction. 

Specifically, claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recognizes that the transparent regions of the 

barrier as disclosed in claim 1 may transmit “radiation of a target wavelength.” Id. at Cl. 7. 

Likewise, the specification discloses that a “barrier includes[] a set of transparent regions” that 

allow “a target radiation wavelength” to pass through the transparent regions. Id. at 3:60-63.

Similarly, the specification also states that there are “layers [of the semiconductor structure] with 

[] regions configured to facilitate the transmission of radiation through the layer.” Id. at 3:46-48.

Therefore, the ’420 Patent’s claim language and specification are wholly consistent with and 

supportive of the Court’s construction: “regions of the barrier that permit light at or near a target 

wavelength to pass through.”

ii. Defendants’ Alternative Construction and Criticism of the Construction are 

Unfounded

The claims and specification do not support Defendants’ alternative construction, which 

states: “distinct regions that have a transmission coefficient of at least 50% for a target 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 76 of 81
77

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

wavelength.” Resp. Br. at 23. “Transmission coefficient” is expressly defined in the specification, 

which explains that a region with “low light absorption” has a “higher transmission coefficient.” 

Id. at 3:35-45. In other words, more light can pass through regions with higher transmission 

coefficients, and less light can pass through regions with lower transmission coefficients. 

Although “transmission coefficient” is defined, the Court cannot adopt Defendants’ alternative 

construction, which states that a region “has a transmission coefficient of at least 50% for a target 

wavelength.” Defendants have improperly imported limitations from the specification that relate to 

the 50% transmission coefficient. See, e.g., Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] claim construction must not import limitations from the specification into 

the claims.”). Specifically, the ’420 Patent’s specification states: “In a more particular 

embodiment, the transparent regions comprise a transmission coefficient for radiation of a target 

wavelength higher than approximately fifty percent . . . .” ’420 Patent at 9:61-63 (emphasis 

added). Thus, the Court rejects Defendants’ alternative construction, which seems to have 

randomly plucked a particular embodiment from the ’420 Patent’s specification to define the claim 

term. 

Furthermore, Defendants assert that because “claims 1 and 13 are not limited to a lightemitting device” based on the claims’ preambles, the construction adopted by the Court, which 

discloses “light at or near a target wavelength,” is nonsensical. Resp. Br. at 24. Defendants are 

correct that claim 1’s preamble does not explicitly disclose a light-emitting device, but rather, 

simply discloses “[a] device.” However, the “purpose of a preamble is to set forth the general 

nature of the invention being claimed.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, 

LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 753 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If a preamble “offers no distinct definition of any of the 

claimed invention’s limitations, . . . then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction.” 

Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1305. Claims 1 and 13’s preambles do not define any of the limitations 

recited in the body of the claims, and none of claim 1 and 13’s limitations rely on the preamble for 

meaning because none of the limitations refer to the preambles’ “device.” Thus, the preamble “is 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 77 of 81
78

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

of no significance to claim construction.” Id. 

However, the broad preamble certainly does not exclude the possibility that the “device” 

can be characterized as light-emitting. Indeed, the elements of claim 1 suggest that the “device” 

disclosed by claim 1’s preamble relate to light emission. For instance, claim 1 discloses a “short 

period superlattice (SPSL) semiconductor layer” with barriers that include “a set of transparent 

regions.” ’420 Patent at Cl. 1. As discussed above, the Court construes “transparent regions” as 

“regions of the barrier that permit light at or near a target wavelength to pass through.” Therefore, 

claim 1’s “device” is associated with light emission. 

iii. Why Claims 1 and 13 are Not Indefinite

The Court rejects Defendants’ position that claims 1 and 13 are indefinite because a skilled 

artisan would understand, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the invention. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that if a claim, “viewed in light of the 

specification and prosecution history, inform[s] those skilled in the art about the scope of the 

invention with reasonable certainty,” the claim is not indefinite. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. In 

applying the Nautilus standard, the Federal Circuit has cautioned that “the dispositive question in 

an indefiniteness inquiry is whether the ‘claims,’ not particular claim terms” fail the Nautilus test. 

Cox Commc’ns, 838 F.3d at 1231. Defendants bear the “burden of proving indefiniteness by clear 

and convincing evidence.” BASF Corp., 875 F.3d at 1365. 

Defendants believe that claims 1 and 13 are indefinite because the claims do not specify 

exactly which wavelengths of radiation can pass through the “transparent regions” of the device of 

claim 1. Resp. Br. at 24. Defendants’ argument is without merit. The claims, when viewed in light 

of the ’420 Patent’s specification, inform those with skill in the art about the scope of the claims 

with “reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. For instance, the specification discloses 

that a potential target wavelength can be “ultraviolet light or deep ultraviolet light.” ’420 Patent at 

7:27. In addition, Fig. 11 depicts the absorption of light between 220 nanometers and 340 

nanometers as a function of the composition of the barriers. Absorption is simply the inverse of 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 78 of 81
79

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

the transmittance of light, so in effect, Fig. 11 can be interpreted as identifying potential target 

wavelengths of light. Ultimately, definiteness does not demand “numerical precision.” Exmark 

Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp., 879 F.3d 1332, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has held that “clear and convincing 

evidence” means that the evidence must be highly and substantially likely to be true than untrue. 

Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984). Here, Defendants’ evidence of indefiniteness 

is essentially the argument that radiation can be of many wavelengths. Resp. Br. at 24. However, 

Defendants ignore the fact that, as discussed above, the ’420 Patent discloses certain wavelengths 

of radiation that could be target wavelengths. 

In sum, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving claims 1 and 13 to be 

indefinite by clear and convincing evidence.

b. Summary

The intrinsic evidence, such as the claim language and patent specification, all support the 

Court’s construction of the claim term “transparent regions” in claims 1 and 13 of the ’420 Patent 

as “regions of the barrier that permit light at or near a target wavelength to pass through.”

The Court need not consider extrinsic evidence because the meaning of the claim term 

“transparent regions” is resolvable by reliance on intrinsic evidence. If the meaning of a claim 

term “can be resolved from the intrinsic evidence alone, we need not rely on any extrinsic 

evidence.” Pickholtz, 284 F.3d at 1373. “Relying on extrinsic evidence to construe a claim is 

proper only when the claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after consideration of the 

intrinsic evidence.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc., 256 F.3d at 1332 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the claim terms as follows.

Patent Claim Term Court’s Construction

’965 cover a cap that seals the case when closed or attached

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 79 of 81
80

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

’965 second compartment defines 

the volume

the volume includes the second compartment

’496 embedded partially related 

sublayer

the p-type contact semiconductor layer and/or the ntype contact semiconductor layer includes a 

semiconductor sublayer that includes dislocations that 

reduce stress

’496 dislocation blocking structure This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).

Function: blocking dislocations. 

Structure: a layer including alternating compressive 

and tensile sublayers, as disclosed in the specification 

at 8:1-9, 8:20-23, 8:37-41, 9:4-40, 9:55-60, 10:2-11, 

10:20-11:3, and 11:51-61 and Figs. 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 

10B, 11A, 11B, and 14

’496 graded composition the composition of the dislocation blocking structure 

changes across its thickness

’468 the difference in the molar 

fractions is selected based on 

a thickness of at least one of 

the first layer or the second 

layer

Indefinite

’468 the material Indefinite

’133 each period including two 

layers formed of group III 

nitride materials . . . having 

molar fractions x [y] and x’ 

[y’], where x>x’ [y>y’]

Indefinite

’420 short period superlattice a semiconductor layer with a plurality of barriers and 

a plurality of wells, where the barriers are thin enough 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 80 of 81
81

Case No. 18-CV-05194-LHK 

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,801,965; 9,966,496; 8,633,468; 9,660,133; 

AND 9,042,420

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

to provide carrier movement through the 

semiconductor layer

’420 transparent regions regions of the barrier that permit light at or near a 

target wavelength to pass through

Consequently, Court hereby finds that claims 14 and 26 of the ’468 Patent and claim 19 of 

the ’133 Patent are invalid and unenforceable for indefiniteness. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 70 Filed 09/24/19 Page 81 of 81