Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01097/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01097-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRI-PLEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-01097-EMC 

ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Plaintiff Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. (“IPT”) has sued multiple companies for 

infringement of its „841 patent. On January 29, 2018, the parties appeared before the Court for a 

claim construction hearing. The parties have asked the Court to construe only one term, which 

appears in claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 of the „841 patent. 

I. ‘841 PATENT

The „841 patent is titled “Optimized Low Profile Swage Mount Base Plate Attachment of 

Suspension Assembly for Hard Disk Drive.” As reflected by the title, the patent relates to hard 

disk drives (“HDDs”). More specifically, the patent concerns a component – known as a “base 

plate” – of a larger structure that is ultimately used to help in the writing data to and reading data 

from the HDD surfaces.

The specification of the „841 patent reinforces that the invention at issue relates to HDDs. 

For example, in the section “Field of the Invention,” the specification states: “This invention 

relates to disk head assemblies for supporting read/write heads adjacent rotating disks in disk 

drives.” „841 patent, col. 1:18-20. Also, in the section “Description of the Prior Art,” the 

specification pinpoints that the prior art became inefficient when “the size of the disk drive . . . 

decreased to fit in small lap top computers.” „841 patent, col. 1:64-65; see also „841 patent, col. 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 16
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1:62-2:10 (describing two problems that arose as disk drives became smaller – (1) maintaining a 

strong connection between the base plate and actuator arm boss hole and (2) poor HDD 

performance related to pre-load). And as yet another example, in the section “Summary of the 

Invention,” the specification states that “the invention is concerned with an optimized low profile 

base plate for attachment of a suspension assembly to an actuator arm in a hard disk drive.” „841 

patent, col. 2:13-15. Finally, in the section “Detailed Description of the Invention,” the 

specification explains that, “[i]n a fully assembled magnetic disk drive, an actuator harm and head 

suspension, which are elements of an actuator arm assembly, are connected end to end by a base 

plate.” „841 patent, col. 3:15-17.

As explained in the specification, the asserted novelty of the „841 patent is that it provides 

an optimized design for the base plate used in HDDs – i.e., the patent “achieve[s] both high postswage torque retention and reliable gram loading.” Op. Br. at 4; see also „841 patent, col. 2:27-30 

(stating that “[t]he invention has the advantage that gram load change inherent in swaging is 

reduced and a large retention torque can be created even in low hub height configurations that 

offer limited retention torque in a standard hub geometry”). In particular, the optimized 

parameters are such as to satisfy the following equation:

„841 patent, col. 2:21-22.

Claim 1 of the „841 patent is a representative claim. It provides as follows:

1. An optimized low profile base plate for attachment 

of a suspension assembly to an actuator arm in a hard disk drive 

comprising:

a flange having a flange thickness (TBP); and,

a hub having, a hub height (HH), a hub radial width WH, a 

land height hub inner surface depth (HIS), and a 

lead in shoulder hub counter bore height (HCB);

wherein

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 16
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

„841 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added).1 The bolded language above is the claim language at issue. 

Although the language is found in the preamble of the claim, IPT contends that it is a limitation on 

the invention. Defendants argue to the contrary.

II. DISCUSSION

Claim construction is a question of law, although it may have factual underpinnings. See 

Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar Electro Oy, 656 Fed. App‟x 1008, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see 

also Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1357

(Fed. Cir. 2016). It “serves to define the scope of the patented invention and the patentee‟s right 

to exclude.” HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communs. Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 

2017); see also O2 Micro Int’l Ld. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 

2008) (stating that the purpose of claim construction is “to determin[e] the meaning and scope of 

the patent claims asserted to be infringed”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary 

meaning, which is the meaning a term would have to a person of 

ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the 

time of the invention. “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of 

claim language . . . may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and 

claim construction in such cases involves little more than the 

application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly 

understood words.” However, in many cases, the meaning of a 

claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is not readily 

apparent.

Id.

Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of 

skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because 

patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to 

“those sources available to the public that show what a person of 

skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to 

mean.” Those sources include “the words of the claims themselves, 

the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and 

 

1

Some of the independent claims in the patent use a slightly different equation, one with 

additional parameters. See „841 patent, claims 4, 10.

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 3 of 16
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the 

meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Although extrinsic evidence “can 

shed useful light on the relevant art, . . . it is less significant than the intrinsic record in 

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

marks omitted).

As noted above, in the instant case, the dispute between the parties concerns the phrase 

“optimized low profile base plate.” According to IPT, although the phrase appears only in the 

preamble of the patent claims, it is limiting in nature and therefore is subject to construction –

although the only construction offered by IPT is “plain and ordinary meaning.” In contrast, 

Defendants contend that the preamble phrase “optimized low profile base plate” is not a limitation 

on the invention and therefore is not subject to claim construction. In the alternative, Defendants 

offer the following construction for the phrase:

A base plate having a profile with dimensions that satisfy:

A. General Law on Preambles

“Whether a preamble stating the purpose and context of the invention constitutes a 

limitation of the claimed process is determined on the facts of each case in light of the overall 

form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the 

prosecution history.” Applied Mats., Inc. v. Adv. Semiconductor Mats. Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 

1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Catalina Mktg. Int'l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 

808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating that, when a court decides whether a preamble is a limitation, it must 

consider “„the entire[] . . . patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented 

and intended to encompass by the claim‟”).

In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential 

structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and 

vitality” to the claim. Conversely, a preamble is not limiting “where 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 4 of 16
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim 

body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use 

for the invention.”

Id.

The Federal Circuit has stated that “[n]o litmus test defines when a preamble limits claim 

scope” but acknowledges that “[s]ome guideposts . . . have emerged from various cases discussing 

the preamble‟s effect on claim scope.” Id. Examples include the following:

 “Jepson claiming[2] generally indicates intent to use the preamble to define the claimed 

invention, thereby limiting claim scope.” Id.

 “[D]ependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit 

claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to 

define the claimed invention.” Id.

 “[W]hen the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, 

the preamble limits claim scope.” Id.

 “[W]hen reciting additional structure or steps underscored as important by the 

specification, the preamble may operate as a claim limitation.” Id.

 “[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed 

invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because 

such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” 

Id.

 “[A] preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally 

complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the 

 

2

A “Jepson” claim is one that contains (1) a preamble that recites an 

old device, process, or combination, (2) a transition phrase such as 

“wherein the improvement comprises,” and (3) a body which states 

the new elements or improvements upon the old device, process, or 

combination. The preamble in a Jepson claim constitutes “a 

limitation for purposes of determining patentability and 

infringement.”

Xilinx, Inc. v. Altera Corp., No. 93-20409 SW, CIVIL NO. 96-20922 SW, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

14774, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 1998).

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 5 of 16
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809.

 “[P]reamble language merely extolling benefits or features of the claimed invention 

does not limit the claim scope without clear reliance on those benefits or features as 

patentably significant.” Id.

 “[P]reambles describing the use of an invention generally do not limit the claims 

because the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed 

structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Id. “[S]tatements of intended 

use or asserted benefits in the preamble may, in rare instances, limit apparatus claims, 

but only if the applicant clearly and unmistakably relied on those uses or benefits to 

distinguish prior art.” Id.

B. “Base Plate”

Although the entire phrase “optimized low profile base plate” is at issue, both parties 

consider each term of the phrase separately. The Court adopts this approach and addresses first 

the term “base plate.”

According to Defendants, “base plate” is not limiting in nature because it is simply a label 

for or description of the structurally complete invention set forth in the body of the claim – i.e., a 

flange and hub with certain dimensions. Although Defendants do not cite IMS Technology, Inc. v. 

Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000), in their papers, the case is one example of 

a situation where the Federal Circuit found a preamble not limiting on that basis. 

In IMS, the plaintiff was a manufacturer of machine tools and machine tool controls. See 

id. at 1425. The patent owned by the plaintiff related “generally to a control for a machine tool, 

such as a milling machine, which is used to cut or remove material from an object, referred to as a 

workpiece, through a machining operation.” Id. at 1426. The preamble of claim 1 of the patent 

read: “„1. A programmable microcomputer control apparatus for controlling the relative motion 

between a tool and a workpiece comprising . . . .‟” Id. at 1427. The district court construed the 

preamble as limiting – i.e., “to a „control system for machine tools rather than an entire machine 

tool apparatus.‟ To the extent that the district court‟s claim interpretation preclude[d] a finding of 

infringement by a machine tool apparatus that include[d] the claimed control-related limitations,” 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 6 of 16
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

the Federal Circuit found that the district court had erred. Id. The circuit court explained: 

The phrase “control apparatus” in the preamble merely gives a 

descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim 

that completely set forth the invention. Its use does not limit the 

claims . . . to a control apparatus that is separate from the machine 

tool. The claim is infringed by any apparatus encompassing all of 

the limitations in the body of the claim. Such an infringing 

apparatus may be a machine tool apparatus that includes the claimed 

control features or a control apparatus that is separate from and 

communicates with a machine tool apparatus.

Id. (emphasis added); see also Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (holding that the term “photoselective vaporization” as used in the preamble was simply “a 

label for the overall invention and not a limitation on the claims”) (emphasis added); Schmalz, Inc. 

v. Better Vacuum Cups, Inc., No. 16-10040, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144280, at *9 (E.D. Mich. 

Sep. 6, 2017) (stating that the term in the preamble was simply “a name for the structurally 

complete invention”); cf. Am. Med., 618 F.3d at 1359 (stating that, “[i]f the preamble „is 

reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of 

the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to 

be a separate limitation‟”).

IPT protests that its invention does not cover any kind of structure made up of a flange and 

hub (with certain dimensions); rather, its invention concerns a component of a HDD specifically. 

See Op. Br. at 7 (stating that the “invention is directed to a particular HDD component”).

The Court agrees with IPT. As an initial matter, the Court notes that, at the hearing, 

Defendants expressly conceded that the invention at issue relates to the HDD context specifically. 

Moreover, as IPT argues, the situation here is ultimately similar to that in Deere & Co. v. Bush 

Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012), where the court found the preamble limiting in nature.

In Deere, the patent at issue disclosed “an „easy clean dual wall deck‟ for a rotary cutter.” 

Id. at 1352. “[R]otary cutters . . . are pulled behind a tractor and [are] used to mow wide swaths of 

ground.” Id. The specification explained that, during use of a rotary cutter, debris accumulates on 

the top of the cutter deck and, if not cleaned off, the debris retains moisture which leads to the 

deck rusting out. The prior art rotary cutters had structural components that made it difficult to 

clean the deck (if mounted on top of the cutter deck) or that interfered with efficiency (if mounted 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 7 of 16
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

underneath the deck). The patent at issue addressed these prior art problems by disclosing “a dualwall deck that encloses the structural components in a torsionally-strong box.” Id. Claim 1 of the 

patent recited “[a] rotary cutter deck comprising,” inter alia, a lower deck wall, an upper deck 

wall, front and rear portions, and right- and left-hand end wall structures to define a box section 

having torsional stiffness. Id. at 1353.

The trial court found that the preamble term “rotary cutter deck” was limiting in nature and 

defined it as “„the blade housing on a power mower.‟”3 Id. at 1357. The Federal Circuit agreed 

with the trial court that the term was limiting even though in the preamble. It noted first that 

[t]he recitation of a “rotary cutter deck” in Claim 1 is necessary to 

understand the subject matter encompassed by the claim, which 

otherwise generally recites deck walls that “define a box section 

having torsional stiffness.” Unlike non-limiting preamble terms, 

“rotary cutter deck” does not merely state a name or a use for the 

claimed box section. Rather, the term describes a “fundamental 

characteristic of the claimed invention” that informs one of skill in 

the art as to the structure required by the claim. For example, that 

the claim is drawn to a “rotary cutter deck” informs the meaning of 

the “torsional stiffness” limitation – the claimed structure must 

possess sufficient stiffness to withstand the torsional loads imposed 

by the operation of a rotary cutter.

Id. at 1358.

The Federal Circuit went on to emphasize that the specification established the phrase 

“rotary cutter deck” as a limitation. 

The specification repeatedly refers to the “present invention” as “an 

improved deck for a rotary cutter,” or a “rotary cutter deck.” The 

title of the patent, the summary of the invention, and every drawing 

describe the invention as a deck for a rotary cutter. The 

specification explains that the invention addresses a concern specific 

to rotary cutter: the need for a cutter deck that is smooth and easy to 

clean, but does not reduce cutting efficiency. In sum, the 

specification underscores the importance of “rotary cutter deck” as a 

limitation of the claimed invention.

Id.

As IPT asserts, Deere is analogous to the instant case. First, that the term “base plate” is 

limiting in nature is suggested by the fact that it informs the meaning of the equation in the body 

 

3

The term “rotary cutter deck” appeared only in the preamble of the claims, although it provided 

an antecedent basis for “said deck” in one claim. See Deere, 703 F.3d at 1357.

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 8 of 16
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

of the claim. The optimized design reflected in the equation takes into account that the base plate 

is being used in a HDD specifically – i.e., the design takes into account the issues of torque 

retention capability and pre-load changes. 

Second, the title of the patent uses the term “base plate” (specifically, in the hard disk drive 

context) as does the summary of the invention. See „841 patent, col. 2:13-15 (summary of the 

invention) (“Briefly the invention is concerned with an optimized low profile base plate for the 

attachment of a suspension assembly to an actuator arm in a hard disk drive.”). In addition, the 

background of the invention describes the invention as a “base plate” in the hard disk drive 

context. See „841 patent, col. 1:18-22 (“This invention relates to disk head assemblies for 

supporting read/write heads adjacent rotating disks in disk drives and more particularly, to a low 

profile base plate for attaching a head suspension assembly to a head actuator arm.”). Finally, the 

specification explains that the invention addresses a concern specific to a base plate used in a hard 

disk drive. See „841 patent, col. 1:62-65 (“Problems with this method of mounting transducer 

heads have arisen as the need for increased data storage capacity in hard disk drives has grown and 

the size of the disk drive has decreased to fit in small lap top computers.”).

Accordingly, contrary to what Defendants contend, “base plate” is not simply a “a name 

for the structurally complete invention.” Schmalz, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144280, at *9. The 

term is not “merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim.” Am. Med., 618 F.3d at 

1359. Instead, it is essential in giving meaning and context to the body of the claim, consistent 

with the title, summary, and specification of the patent.

The Court therefore agrees with IPT that “base plate” is a limiting term even if in the 

preamble only. The only remaining question is whether “base plate” should be further defined. 

IPT argues “no,” asserting that the Court may rest on the term‟s plain and ordinary meaning. And 

practically speaking, Defendants do not disagree as their proposed definition of the larger phrase 

“optimized low profile base plate” repeats the term “base plate.” The Court, therefore, need not, at 

this juncture, provide any specific construction for the term “base plate.”

C. “Optimized”

The second term at issue is “optimized.” Here, the Court does not agree with IPT‟s 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 9 of 16
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

position that “optimized” as used in the preamble is a limiting term. As Defendants point out, that 

argument is contrary to Federal Circuit authority holding that “a preamble generally is not limiting 

when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble 

phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 

809. “Optimization” is what the equation in the body of claim 1 provides (i.e., an optimized 

design). Thus, the use of the term “optimized” in the preamble is essentially duplicative of the 

equation in the body of claim 1 (or the relevant equation in the other claims). See „841 patent, col. 

2:21-22 (“The optimized parameters are such as to satisfy the following equation: . . . .”); see also

Am. Med., 618 F.3d at 1359 (stating that, “[i]f the preamble „is reasonably susceptible to being 

construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly 

added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation‟”).

D. “Low Profile”

The parties‟ main dispute turns on the term “low profile” – i.e., whether this preamble term

is limiting in nature. IPT argues that “low profile” must be deemed limiting because “the „841 

Patent discloses exemplary base plate dimensions that have a geometry metric value above 5” but, 

“because the geometry metric value is the result of a ratio, an object with those dimensions in 

kilometers (or miles) would result in the same geometry metric value.” Op. Br. at 7-8 (emphasis 

in original). “To read the „841 Patent as covering such objects would be „divorced from reality‟” –

especially since the invention is directed at base plates used in hard disk drives. Op. Br. at 8. In 

short, according to IPT, “low profile” is a necessary term that provides the scale of the 

optimization formula.

The Court finds that “low profile” is, indeed, limiting based on Federal Circuit authority 

holding that, “when reciting additional structure or steps underscored as important by the 

specification, the preamble may operate as a claim limitation.” Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808. 

Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc., 383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004), is a good 

example of such a case. There, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patent holder that “the 

[preamble] phrase „blown-film‟ is a limitation” because “[t]he specification is replete with 

references to the invention as a „blown-film‟ liner, including the title of the patent itself and the 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 10 of 16
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

„Summary of the Invention.‟” Id. at 1310. The court also noted that “[t]he phrase is used 

repeatedly to described the preferred embodiments, and the entire preamble „blown-film textured 

liner‟ is restated in each of the patent‟s seven claims.” Id. 

General Electric Co. v. Nintendo Co., 179 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999), is another example. 

There, the patent at issue was directed to devices for retrieving stored picture information from the 

memory of a computer and displaying that information on a standard television screen or other 

display device (e.g., monitor). See id. at 1352. The alleged infringer argued that there was no 

infringement because claim 1 requires a bit map display device and the accused products did not 

meet this limitation. The question for the Federal Circuit was whether a bit map display device 

was a limitation on claim 1; the only reference in claim 1 to a bit map display was in the preamble 

– i.e., “„[a] system for displaying a pattern on a raster scanned display device by mapping bits 

from a display location in a memory associated with a computer onto the raster.‟” Id. at 1361. 

The court found that the preamble was a limitation.

Here, the „125 specification makes clear that the inventors were 

working on the particular problem of displaying binary data on a 

raster scan display device and not general improvements to ally 

display systems. In light of the specification, to read the claim 

indiscriminately to cover all types of display systems would be 

divorced from reality. The invention so described is restricted to 

those display devices that work by displaying bits, which is not true 

with respect to all display systems recited in just the body of the 

claim. “Thus, we conclude that the claim preamble in this instance 

does not merely state a purpose or intended use for the claimed 

structure. Rather, those words do give „life and meaning‟ and 

provide further positive limitations to the invention claims.”

Id. at 1361-62; see also Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 

1256-57 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (rejecting alleged infringer‟s argument that that preamble term “optical 

waveguide” was not a limitation and simply stated an intended use; “[t]o read the claim in light of 

the specification indiscriminately to cover all types of optical fibers would be divorced from 

reality”).

In the instant case, the specification indicates that the preamble phrase “low profile” should 

be considered a limitation. Similar to the situation in Poly-America, here, the preamble phrase 

“low profile” is part of the title of the patent itself (“Optimized Low Profile Swage Mount Base 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 11 of 16
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Plate Attachment of Suspension Assembly for Hard Disk Drive”) and the summary of the 

invention. See „841 patent, col. 2:14-16 (summary of the invention) (“Briefly, the invention is 

concerned with an optimized low profile base plate for attachment of a suspension assembly to an 

actuator arm in a hard disk drive.”) (emphasis added); „841 patent, col. 2:27-30 (summary of the 

invention) (“The invention has the advantage that gram load change inherent in swaging is 

reduced and a large retention torque can be created even in low hub height configurations that 

offer limited retention torque in a standard hub geometry.”) (emphasis added). Also, the preamble 

phrase “low profile” is restated in each of the patent‟s independent claims. See „841 patent, claims 

1, 4, 7, 10. Finally, the background of the invention emphasizes that the invention is a low profile 

base plate specifically. See „841 patent, col. 1:18-22 (“This invention relates to disk head 

assemblies for supporting read/write heads adjacent rotating disks in disk drives and more 

particularly, to a low profile base plate for attaching a head suspension assembly to a head actuator 

arm.”) (emphasis added); „841 patent, col. 2:7-8 (“It is therefore desirable to provide a base plate 

that has a lower profile than a conventional base plate . . . .”) (emphasis added). This is 

underscored by the prosecution history. See Op. Br., Ex. B (affidavit submitted to the PTO on 

behalf of IPT) (stating that “there was a long felt need for the invention as evidenced by customers 

requiring a low profile base plate that has a lower profile than a conventional base plate, a torque 

retention capability comparable to existing products with a reduced pre-load change caused by the 

swaging process, needs that are well known in the industry wherein disk drives are becoming 

smaller and faster”) (emphasis added). And it is clear from the title, summary, and specification

that the scale of the invention is such that it applies to HDDs.

The arguments that Defendants make in their responsive brief are not persuasive. For 

example, as noted above, in its opening brief, IPT argued that “low profile” must be deemed a 

limitation even though appearing in the preamble only because otherwise “an object with [certain] 

dimensions in kilometers (or miles)” would satisfy the equation in, e.g., claim 1. Op. Br. at 8 

(emphasis in original). In response to IPT‟s argument, Defendants argued that this was an 

“insincere” concern because “base plates are components of a hard disk drive and none of the 

accused or prior art base plates at issue in this case is so impractically sized in kilometers.” Resp. 

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 12 of 16
13

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

For the Northern District of California

Br. at 7. But if anything, this argument of Defendants underscores why “low profile” is in fact 

part of the invention claimed: the body of claim 1 does not refer to HDDs; “low profile” is not 

duplicative of anything in the body of the claim.

Defendants protest that if the term “low profile” is a limitation on the invention, then the 

invention must be deemed invalid because “low profile” is indefinite. Defendants have the burden 

of establishing indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. See TecSec v. Int'l Bus Machines 

Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Generally, “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, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014); see also Takeda Pharm. 

Co. v. Mylan Inc., No. 13-CV-04001-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159527, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 11, 2014) (noting that, prior to Nautilus, “the Federal Circuit applied an „insolubly 

ambiguous‟ standard to indefiniteness questions” but “the Supreme Court rejected the insolubly 

ambiguous standard and replaced it with a „reasonable certainty‟ standard”). 

Whether a claim is indefinite or definite is a question of law. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. 

Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But while “[i]ndefiniteness is . . . a legal 

determination arising out of the court‟s performance of its duty construing the claims,” “[l]ike 

enablement, definiteness, too, is amenable to resolution by the jury where the issues are factual in 

nature.” BJ Servs. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., 338 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Defendants argue that “low profile” is indefinite because it “is a relative term with no 

understood meaning.” Resp. Br. at 5. In response, IPT notes that “relative terms and words of 

degree do not render patent claims invalid” so long as the claim terms inform those skilled in the 

art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (adding that “[o]ne must bear in mind . . . that 

patents are not addressed to lawyers, or even to the public generally, but rather to those skilled in 

the relevant art”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

For example, in 1923, the Supreme Court “uph[eld] as definite a 

patent for an improvement to a paper-making machine, which 

provided that a wire be placed at a „high‟ or „substantial elevation.‟”

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 13 of 16
14

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

For the Northern District of California

Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129 n.5 (citing Eibel Process, 261 U.S. at 

58). The Court explained that these relative terms – “substantial”

and “high” – were sufficiently definite because “„readers . . . skilled 

in the art of paper making and versed in the use of the . . . machine‟

would have „no difficulty . . . in determining . . . the substantial 

[elevation] needed‟ for the machine to operate as specified.” Id.

(quoting Eibel Process, 261 U.S. at 65-66).

Id.

In One-E-Way, the Federal Circuit noted that 

[t]his historical practice continues today. In one of our postNautilus decisions, we upheld as definite a claim that employed the 

relative term “substantially centered.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 

Co., 786 F.3d 983, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on 

other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429, 196 L. Ed. 2d 363 (2016). The claim 

term, used in a patent relating to a user-interface feature, required 

that a selected portion of an electronic display be enlarged and 

“substantially centered” on the display. Id. (quoting U.S. Patent No. 

7,864,163 (Claim 50)). The patent challenger had failed to adduce 

any evidence showing that the person of ordinary skill would lack 

reasonable certainty in the claim's scope, while the patent owner had 

presented expert testimony that skilled artisans would interpret 

“substantially centered” in the patent “to mean essentially centered 

except for a marginal spacing to accommodate ancillary graphical 

user interface elements.” Id. at 1003. Moreover, the expert‟s 

suggested interpretation of “substantially centered” paralleled the 

patent specification's disclosure. Id. Relying on these disclosures, 

the court concluded that “substantially centered” was not indefinite. 

Id.

Id.

And in One-E-Way itself, the Federal Circuit held that the term “virtually free from 

interference” was not indefinite and that the term meant preventing one user from eavesdropping 

on another. See id. at 1063-64. The court noted that “[t]he specification repeatedly highlights 

[the] private-listening feature of the claimed invention. And in each repetition, the specification 

states that private listening is „without interference‟ from other users‟ wireless audio transmission 

devices.” Id. at 1064. In addition, the prosecution history confirmed the above construction of the 

term. “During prosecution of the related parent patent, the applicant explained that term „virtually 

free from interference‟ results in the ability to listen without eavesdropping.” Id. at 1064-65. 

While the court admitted that it had not defined the term “in a technical sense,” it explained that 

the lack of a technical definition does not render the term indefinite. 

As demonstrated by the specification and prosecution history 

discussed above, the applicant used the term "interference" in a nonCase 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 14 of 16
15

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

For the Northern District of California

technical manner to simply mean that the wireless headphone user is 

able to listen without eavesdropping. This interpretation is 

consistent with the specification and prosecution history and 

provides a clear line such that it informs those skilled in the art 

about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. For the 

purposes of definiteness, the term is not required to have a technical 

measure of the amount of interference.

Id. at 1066.

In the instant case, the Court does not have a sufficient record to make a determination on 

indefiniteness as the Federal Circuit did in One-E-Way. While, as IPT notes, the „841 patent does 

provide one example of what constitutes “low profile,” see, e.g., col. 4:1-19 (chart reflecting 

typical invention dimensions),4it is not clear what height would take a base plate outside of the 

category of “low profile.” Cf. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-cv-05008-

PSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72935, at *35-36 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2016) (finding the term 

“substantially impair the quality of the user information” indefinite; noting that, “[a]t least on one 

point, the specification seems clear: stealing a single frame would fall within the claimed 

invention[,] [b]ut the edges of the claim are murkier” and based on the “„zone of uncertainty,‟” 

concluding indefiniteness); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating that “a patent does not satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112 

merely because „a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent's claims‟[;] [t]he claims, when read 

in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for 

those of skill in the art,” and “a term of degree fails to provide sufficient notice of its scope if it 

depends „on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person‟s opinion‟”) (emphasis in original).

At the hearing, IPT contended that one skilled in the art would be able to ascertain and 

describe the boundaries of “low profile” perhaps based on prior art and/or dimensions of HDDs at 

the time. But no evidence has been presented by either party on what one skilled in the art would 

or would not know. Accordingly, at this juncture of the proceedings, the Court finds that “low 

profile” is a limitation on the invention but specific construction of the term – including whether 

 

4 Column 4 of the patent indicates that the typical invention dimension for HH + TBP is 0.269mm + 

0.150mm, or 0.419mm. Thus, one skilled in the art would infer that 0.419mm would be low 

profile.

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 15 of 16
16

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

For the Northern District of California

or not the term is sufficiently definite – is otherwise not possible based on the record before the 

Court at this time. Nor is the Court prepared at this juncture to rule on indefiniteness as a matter 

of law. Defendants may, in the future, seek a ruling on indefiniteness after further development of 

the record. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the terms “low profile” and “base plate” –

although appearing in the preamble only – are limitations on the invention claimed in the „841 

patent. In contrast, the term “optimized” is not a limitation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01097-EMC Document 77 Filed 02/01/18 Page 16 of 16