Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01191/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01191-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2020-1191

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 4:17-cv-01958-HSG, 

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

______________________

Decided: February 21, 2020

______________________

ALISON AUBREY RICHARDS, Global IP Law Group, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented 

by DAVID P. BERTEN, C. GRAHAM GERST, HANNAH L.

SADLER. 

 ALLAN SOOBERT, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by 

STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD; ELIZABETH BRANN, San Diego, 

CA. 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2020
2 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

MobileMedia Ideas, LLC sued Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung), alleging infringement of the claims of

U.S. Patent No. 6,427,078 and U.S. Patent No. 5,915,239.1 

In March 2017, MobileMedia assigned the patents-in-suit 

to Ironworks, which was then substituted as plaintiff in 

July 2017. In October 2018, the district court issued a 

claim construction order, construing claim terms of both 

the ’078 patent and ’239 patent. Following the claim construction order, the parties stipulated to noninfringement 

of the claims of the ’078 patent and to noninfringement and 

invalidity of the claims of the ’239 patent. The district 

court entered judgment based on its claim construction order and the parties’ stipulation. Ironworks appeals the 

1 MobileMedia also asserted infringement of the 

claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,553,125. Samsung filed counterclaims alleging noninfringement and invalidity of the 

asserted claims of the ’125 patent. The district court dismissed with prejudice the claim of infringement of the asserted claims of the ’125 patent. Order Granting Motion to 

Dismiss Claim Regarding ’125 Patent, Ironworks Patents 

LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 4:17-cv01958-HSG (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017), ECF No. 140. It 

later dismissed without prejudice Samsung’s counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity of the asserted 

claims of the ’125 patent. Order of Final Decision, Ironworks Patents LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 

No. 4:17-cv-01958-HSG (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019), ECF No. 

178. The district court also dismissed without prejudice 

Samsung’s counterclaim for invalidity of the asserted 

claims of the ’078 patent. Id.

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 02/21/2020
IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 3

district court’s judgment, arguing that the district court’s 

claim constructions were erroneous. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

For the reasons discussed below, we vacate and remand

the district court’s judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ’078 patent because the district court 

erred in its construction of the term “camera unit.” We also 

vacate and remand the judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’239 patent because the district court 

erred in its construction of the term “means for interpreting the received voice commands.” Finally, we affirm the 

judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the 

’239 patent because the district court did not err in its construction of the term “means for storing the sub-identifiers.” 

I. THE ’078 PATENT

Ironworks asserted infringement of claims 1–3, 6, 18, 

36, 38, 42, 46, 73, and 77 of the ’078 patent. All three asserted independent claims—claims 1, 36, and 73— require 

a “camera unit.” The district court construed “camera unit” 

as “camera arrangement comprising a camera, optics, microprocessor and memory, battery, and interface to external systems constituting an individual component of a 

whole personal communication device or whole portable 

mobile cellular phone.” J.A. 40. Based on the district 

court’s construction of “camera unit,” the parties stipulated 

to noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ’078 patent. The district court entered final judgment of noninfringement of those claims. Ironworks appeals from that 

decision, arguing that the district court erroneously construed the term “camera unit.” 

We review a district court’s claim construction de novo 

except for underlying fact findings related to extrinsic evidence, which we review for clear error. Teva Pharm. USA, 

Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 835 (2015). “The words 

of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 02/21/2020
4 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the 

art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. 

LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We hold that 

the district court erred in its construction of “camera unit.”

The ’078 patent is directed to a device for personal communication, data collection and data processing. ’078 patent at 1:10–12. The device is a “small-sized, portable and 

hand-held work station,” such as a notebook computer, that 

includes a data processing unit, a display, a user interface, 

at least one memory unit, a power source, and application 

software. ’078 patent at Abstract; see also id. at 1:12–17. 

In some embodiments, the device also includes a camera 

unit, which may be placed into the housing of the device or 

fitted on a PCMCIA card, e.g., an insertable camera card. 

Id. 

The three independent claims in which the term “camera unit” appears differ in the elements the “camera unit” 

comprises. Claim 1 recites:

1. A portable cellular mobile phone for personal 

communication, data collection and data processing, which is a small-sized, portable and handheld work station including a housing and comprising

a data processing unit comprising a microprocessor,

a display,

a user interface,

a number of peripheral device interfaces,

at least one memory unit;

a power source, and

application software,

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 02/21/2020
IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 5

wherein the device also comprises:

a camera unit for obtaining and outputting image 

information comprising:

a camera for receiving image information; 

optics connected to said camera for passing said image information to the camera;

means for processing and for storing at least a portion of said image information obtained by said 

camera unit for later recall and processing; 

at least one memory unit for storing said image information; and 

an output coupled to said data processing unit for 

outputting image information from said memory 

unit to the processing unit; and 

wherein at least a portion of said camera unit is located within said housing, and said data processing 

unit processes image information output by said 

camera unit,

wherein said display presents image information 

obtained by said camera unit, and 

wherein said device further comprises means for 

transmitting image information processed by said 

processing unit to another location using a radio 

frequency channel.

(emphasis added). Claim 36 recites:

36. A portable notebook computer having a housing, comprising:

a camera unit for recording an image of a selected 

object, and having at least one memory unit for 

storing an image recorded by said camera unit;

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 02/21/2020
6 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

means, coupled to said camera unit, for processing 

an image recorded by said camera unit, and

means for transmitting an image processed by said 

processing means to another location using a radio 

frequency channel;

wherein at least a portion of said camera unit is integrated in one of said housing of said notebook 

computer and a circuit card.

(emphasis added). Claim 73 recites:

73. A portable cellular mobile phone comprising:

a built in camera unit for obtaining image information;

a user interface for enabling a user to input signals 

to operate the camera unit;

a display for presenting image information obtained by the camera unit;

a microprocessor adapted to control the operations 

of the camera unit in response to input signals from 

the user interface, and to process image information received by the camera unit; and

means, coupled to said microprocessor, for transmitting image information processed by said microprocessor to another location using a radio 

frequency channel;

and wherein the camera unit comprises:

optics for obtaining image information;

an image sensor for obtaining image information; 

and

means for processing and for storing at least a portion of the image information obtained by the camera unit for later recall and processing.

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 6 Filed: 02/21/2020
IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 7

(emphasis added). 

We hold that the proper construction of “camera unit” 

requires that the camera unit include a “camera, optics, 

and an image processing unit.” Each of the asserted independent claims recites a camera unit, but each describes 

the camera unit differently. For example, claim 1 describes 

that a camera unit comprises a camera, optics, means for 

processing and for storing, at least one memory unit, and 

an output. Claim 36 describes a camera unit as “having at 

least one memory unit.” And claim 73 describes that the 

camera unit comprises optics, an image sensor, and means 

for processing and storing. Because the claims recite differing components of a camera unit, we turn to the specification for context.

The specification confirms that a “camera unit” is a 

camera, optics, and an image processing unit. The specification consistently refers to camera unit 14 which includes 

camera arrangement 14o (comprising camera 14a and optics 14b) and image processing unit 14c (which comprises

microprocessor 23 and memory units 24). See, e.g., ’078 patent at 3:14–18, 3:22–26, 5:23–25. For example, the specification describes “[c]amera unit 14, which is represented 

in the form of a block diagram in FIG. 5, consists of camera

arrangement 14[o] which comprises camera 14a provided 

with suitable optics 14b, and image processing unit 14c 

connected to the camera arrangement.” ’078 patent at 

3:14–18. That is consistent with the specification’s other 

teachings that camera unit 14 is comprised of camera 14a, 

optics 14b, and image processing unit 14c. ’078 patent at 

4:25–29, 3:22–26. And throughout the specification, the 

camera unit and its components are identified using a 

numbering convention that associates those components 

with the number 14. The specification refers to “camera 

unit 14” and its components as “camera 14a,” “optics 14b,” 

and “image processing unit 14c.” 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 7 Filed: 02/21/2020
8 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

Samsung argues that the district court correctly held 

that the camera unit also requires a battery and an interface. This argument is premised upon a single sentence in 

the specification that states, “the structure of both camera 

card 15 and camera unit 14 conforms to the block diagram 

shown in Fig. 5.” According to Samsung, everything in Figure 5 must therefore be included in the construction of camera unit. We do not agree. Figure 5 uses the same 

numbering convention as the rest of the specification, suggesting camera unit 14 is comprised of elements numbered 

as 14 (i.e., camera arrangement 14o, which comprises camera 14a and optics 14b, and image processing unit 14c). See 

’078 patent at 4:25–29. Other elements in Figure 5 are 

numbered differently, such as battery 21 and interface 22, 

suggesting they are not part of the camera unit 14. See id. 

In fact, the description concerning Figure 5 explains that 

“camera card 15” (as opposed to “camera unit 14”) includes 

battery 21 and interface 22. Id. at 4:25–29. On the other 

hand, a camera unit as expressly defined in the specification includes a camera, optics, and an image processing 

unit. Id. at 3:14–18.

The specification demonstrates that the battery and interface are not necessary components of the camera unit 

itself. It describes two separate embodiments involving the 

camera unit: one in which the described camera unit is 

fixed on an insertable camera card separate from the personal communication device, and another where the camera unit is integrated with the device.

In the first embodiment, “the camera unit (14) is fitted 

on a PCMCIA card (15) which can be connected to the 

PCMCIA card slot (16) of the device.” ’078 patent at Abstract; see also id. at 3:22–29, 4:25–29. The PCMCIA card 

is an insertable, portable card that is connectable and detachable from the mobile device itself. See id. at 4:2–8. The 

specification describes that, in this embodiment, “[b]attery 

21 is mainly used to ensure that images are maintained in 

the volatile memory units if the PCMCIA card is detached

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 8 Filed: 02/21/2020
IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 9

from the card slot.” ’078 patent at 4:43–45. In that embodiment, the battery is a necessary component of the 

PCMCIA card on which the camera unit is fitted because it 

is necessary to ensure that images are not lost when the 

camera card is detached from the personal communication 

device. That embodiment further explains that “image information [from the camera card] is transmitted to processor 4 of the mobile organizer along PCMCIA interface 22 or 

a corresponding interface.” Id. at 4:59–61. It is the interface which enables communication of information on the 

card to the mobile device. However, the fact that the interface may be necessary for operation of the card does not 

necessitate that it be part of the construction for the camera unit. 

In the second embodiment, the camera unit is “placed 

in the housing” or “integrated” with the device. ’078 patent 

at Abstract; 3:6–21; 4:48–51. In this embodiment, because 

the camera unit is integrated in the housing and not removable, there is not the same technical need for the battery or the interface. The specification makes clear that 

the battery is not a required component of such a camera 

unit, which is integrated in the housing that includes its 

own power source. The specification does, however, allow 

for the option of a battery in this embodiment: “[b]attery 

21 can be also used for the same purpose [i.e., to ensure 

that images are maintained in the volatile memory units]

in camera unit 14.” ’078 patent at 4:46–47 (emphasis 

added). Likewise, this second embodiment with a permanently installed, non-portable camera unit does not need a 

PCMCIA interface. The camera unit is directly integrated 

into the mobile device. See id. at 3:12–13 (“[c]amera unit 

14 is connected via input/output controller 5 to data processing unit 2”). 

The camera unit 14 as consistently defined throughout 

the specification consists of a camera, optics, and an image 

processing unit. Given the consistent usage in the specification and the technical differences between the two 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 9 Filed: 02/21/2020
10 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

embodiments disclosed, camera unit should not be construed so as to require a battery and interface. Because the 

district court erred in its construction of the term “camera 

unit,” and that construction was the basis for the parties’ 

stipulation of noninfringement of the ’078 patent, we vacate and remand the district court’s judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ’078 patent.

II. THE ’239 PATENT

Ironworks asserted infringement of claims 4, 10, 18, 

and 27 of the ’239 patent. The district court issued a claim 

construction order construing various terms of the ’239 patent. The parties stipulated to entry of judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’239 

patent based on the district court’s claim construction. 

The ’239 patent relates to a method that allows a user 

to make phone calls using voice commands by selecting, in 

response to a spoken voice command, a telephone number 

stored with an “identifier” in audio form, such as a person’s 

name. See, e.g., ’239 patent at 1:5–15, 4:19–37. Ironworks 

asserted infringement of claims 4, 10, 18, and 27 of the ’239 

patent. Claims 4 and 10 are the only asserted independent 

claims. Claim 4 recites:

4. A voice controlled device comprising:

means for storing the telephone numbers to be selected,

means for storing at least one identifier for each 

telephone number to be selected,

means for receiving an identifier given in a voice 

form,

means for interpreting the received voice commands,

means for selecting a telephone number in response to a voice command, 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 10 Filed: 02/21/2020
IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 11

wherein the identifier comprises a plurality of subidentifiers, and the voice controlled device comprises means for storing the sub-identifiers, and

means for selecting a telephone number in response to a voice command comprising at least two 

of the plurality of sub-identifiers including the subidentifier.

(emphases added). Claim 10 recites:

10. A voice controlled device comprising:

means for storing telephone numbers to be selected,

means for storing at least one identifier for each 

telephone number to be selected,

means for receiving an identifier given in a voice 

form,

means for interpreting received voice commands,

means for selecting a telephone number in response to a voice command,

wherein the identifier comprises several sub-identifiers, and the voice controlled device comprises 

means for storing the sub-identifiers, and 

means for selecting a telephone number in response to a voice command comprising a combination of several sub-identifiers.

(emphases added).

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 11 Filed: 02/21/2020
12 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

1. “means for interpreting the received voice commands”

The district court construed the term “means for interpreting the received voice commands”2 as a means-plusfunction term having the function of “interpreting the received voice commands” and lacking corresponding structure in the specification, resulting in the term being 

indefinite under § 112. J.A. 56–60, 64. Based on the court’s 

holding that the term was indefinite under § 112, the parties stipulated that the asserted claims of the ’239 patent 

were invalid. J.A. 3450–51. 

Ironworks argues that the district court erred to the 

extent that it held that “means for interpreting the received voice commands” lacks definite corresponding structure in the specification. Ironworks argues the ’239 patent 

discloses that the voice-control unit, including its subcomponents and associated programming, is the structure that 

interprets received voice commands. And Ironworks argues that the specification expressly discloses an algorithm 

for operation of the voice-control unit. We agree. The specification states that, “voice-control unit 2 comprises advantageously a voice-recognition means 3, a voice pattern 

memory 4, a controller unit 5, read-only memory 6, random 

access memory 7, speech synthesizer 8 and a interface 9.” 

’239 patent at 3:26–30. It further discloses structure for 

the voice-control unit by describing the algorithm performed by the voice-control unit and its components. Id. at 

5:9–25. The district court recognized that “column 5:9–25 

could set forth a sufficiently specific step-by-step procedure 

for the operation of the voice-control unit.” J.A. 58. The 

specification includes sufficient structure for the voice2 Claims 4 and 10 of the ’239 patent recite a “means 

for interpreting the received voice commands” and “means 

for interpreting voice commands,” respectively. As used in 

this opinion the term “means for interpreting the received 

voice commands” refers to both terms. 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 12 Filed: 02/21/2020
IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 13

control unit of which the voice-recognition means is a component. ’239 patent at 3:26–30 (“voice-control unit 2 comprises advantageously a voice-recognition means 3” 

(emphasis added)).

Samsung recognizes that the “voice recognition means 

3” is a component of the larger “voice-control unit 2” and 

admits column 5:9–25 could set forth a sufficiently specific 

algorithm for the operation of the voice-control unit. But 

Samsung argues the district court correctly concluded that 

Ironworks’ statement in its claim construction reply brief

that, “the proposed structure is not limited to the ‘voicecontrol unit’” forecloses reliance on an algorithm associated 

with the voice-control unit 2. J.A. 58 (citing J.A. 3437). 

Samsung also argues that the district court’s construction 

of the separate “means for selecting” terms relies on portions of the specification that overlap with Ironworks’ proposed construction here, and the specification does not 

support a construction in which the same structures support both functions. 

Not only did Ironworks not disclaim an argument that 

column 5 provides an algorithm based on the relationship 

between voice recognition means 3 and voice-control unit 

2, the fact that the algorithm overlaps with the undisputed 

algorithm associated with other terms is not unexpected. 

Indeed, an algorithm can support more than one function. 

See Oral Arg. at 13:37–50 (Judge: Isn’t it the case in electrical systems that the same software can perform multiple 

functions? Doesn’t it happen . . . all the time? A: Yes. 

Judge: Can’t the same algorithm achieve two different 

parts? A: Yes. Judge: Isn’t that a pretty regular occurrence? A: Yes, Your Honor.). Because the algorithm is sufficiently disclosed in the specification itself, and voice 

recognition means 3 is included within the voice-control 

unit 2, we hold the appropriate structure is “voice-control 

unit implementing the algorithm at Figure 3, col. 5:9–25, 

or col. 6:1–57.” 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 13 Filed: 02/21/2020
14 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

Because we conclude that the district court erred in 

holding that the term “means for interpreting the received 

voice commands” was indefinite, we vacate and remand the

judgment of invalidity of the ’239 patent. 

2. “means for storing the sub-identifiers” 

The district court construed the term “means for storing sub-identifiers” as having the function of “storing subidentifiers” and the structure of “voice pattern and voiceequivalent memory, and the control circuitry and programming for storing sub-identifiers in memory executing the 

algorithms disclosed in columns 4:19–54 [of the ’239 patent’s specification].” J.A. 64. Under that construction, the 

parties stipulated to noninfringement of the claims of the 

’239 patent. J.A. 3451. 

Ironworks argues that the district court erred in its requirement that the specification disclose an algorithm. 

Ironworks contends that this term falls within the exception set forth in In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation that a specification need not disclose 

algorithmic structure for a computer-implemented meansplus-function claim when the function “can be achieved by 

any general purpose computer without special programming.” 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

We do not agree. Katz “identified a narrow exception 

to the requirement that an algorithm must be disclosed for 

a general-purpose computer to satisfy the disclosure requirement.” Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 

673 F.3d 1361, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “It is only in the 

rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer 

without any special programming can perform the function 

that an algorithm need not be disclosed.” Id.; see also EON 

Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 

616, 621–22 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“a microprocessor can serve 

as structure for a computer-implemented function only 

where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself”). The function of storing sub-identifiers 

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 14 Filed: 02/21/2020
IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 15

“requires more than merely plugging in a general-purpose 

computer.” Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1365. The specification describes that storing the identifier (which is comprised of a plurality of sub-identifiers) requires that the 

voice-control unit be set into a particular function mode, 

then perform several intervening steps, after which each 

sub-identifier is stored into the voice-equivalent memory. 

’239 patent at Figure 2, 4:19–54. We see no error in the 

district court’s construction and likewise agree that the

Katz exception does not apply. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment of noninfringement of the ’239 patent’s claims. 

Ironworks contends that “all equivalents thereof” 

should be added to the district court’s constructions of 

“means for storing the sub-identifiers” and “means for selecting a telephone number . . . .” Samsung appears to 

agree that the district court’s constructions include “equivalents.”

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand the 

judgment of noninfringement of the claims of the ’078 patent because it depends on the district court’s erroneous 

construction of the term “camera unit.” We further vacate 

and remand the judgment of invalidity of the claims of the 

’239 patent because the district court erroneously construed “means for interpreting the received voice commands” as not having a definite structure. We affirm the 

judgment of noninfringement of the claims of the ’239 patent because the district court correctly construed the term 

“means for storing the sub-identifiers.” We have considered the appellants remaining arguments and conclude 

they are without merit. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 15 Filed: 02/21/2020
16 IRONWORKS PATENTS LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD.

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.

Case: 20-1191 Document: 26 Page: 16 Filed: 02/21/2020