Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03640/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03640-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CANON, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3640 CW

ORDER CONSTRUING 

DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS 

OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 

7,719,847; 

7,522,424; AND 

7,295,443

(Docket No. 282)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3643 CW

(Docket No. 72)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEWEGG INC. et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3645 CW

(Docket No. 59)

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 14-3646 CW

(Docket No. 69)

In these patent infringement cases, Plaintiffs Technology 

Properties Limited, LLC, and MCM Portfolio, LLC, sued Defendants

Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A. Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Newegg 

Inc., Rosewill Inc., Seiko Epson Corporation, and Epson America, 

Inc. The cases were initially filed in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and were transferred to 

this District upon Defendants' consolidated motion to transfer 

venue. Docket No. 163.1 In their amended complaints, Plaintiffs 

assert that several of Defendants' products infringe Plaintiffs' 

patents. The parties seek construction of seven disputed terms 

used in the claims of the following patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent 

Numbers 7,719,847 (the '847 patent); 7,522,424 (the '424 patent) 

and 7,285,443 (the '443 patent). On June 18, 2015, the parties 

appeared for a claim construction hearing. Having considered the 

 

1 Docket Numbers correspond to the docket for case number 

14-3640.

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

claims and specifications, along with the papers and arguments of 

counsel, the Court construes the disputed terms as follows.

LEGAL STANDARD

Claim construction is a question of law to be determined by 

the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 

979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). "To 

construe a claim term, the trial court must determine the meaning 

of any disputed words from the perspective of one of ordinary 

skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing." Chamberlain 

Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

This requires a careful review of the intrinsic record, which 

includes the claim terms, written description, and prosecution

history of the patent. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). 

While claim terms "are generally given their ordinary and 

customary meaning," the rest of the claim language and the context 

in which the terms appear "provide substantial guidance as to the 

meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-

15. Claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which 

they are a part." Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. Although a patent's 

prosecution history "lacks the clarity of the specification and 

thus is less useful for claim construction purposes," it "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 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be." Phillips, 415 

F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court may 

also consider extrinsic evidence, including dictionaries, 

scientific treatises, and testimony from experts and inventors. 

Such evidence, however, is "less significant than the intrinsic 

record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim 

language." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

BACKGROUND

The three patents-in-suit were filed in the following order: 

the '443 patent was first, the '424 patent was second, and the 

'847 patent was third. The three patents describe devices for 

reading removable memory cards. There are several different types 

of memory cards available to consumers, including SmartMedia, 

CompactFlash, MultiMediaCard (MMC), xD Picture Card and Memory 

Stick. The variety of formats presented a potential problem for 

devices that needed to interface with multiple types of memory 

cards, and the patents-in-suit overcome this problem by enabling 

production of a memory card reader that can accept and read 

multiple types of memory cards through a single slot in a single 

device.

The parties agree that the patent describes the following 

technology. The memory cards have pads that mate with the 

device's contact pins. The contact pins connect to 

interconnection means, which connect to signal lines, which 

connect to the device's controller. The physical paths between 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the controller, signal lines, interconnection means and contact 

pins are fixed. However, because the device accommodates multiple 

types of memory cards--with their multiple numbers of pads--the 

contact pins may have to process different signals in order to 

communicate with the different types of memory cards. The 

device's controller "maps" the signal lines to the contact pins. 

Figure 5 of the patents illustrates the different mapping 

configurations. For example: if an XD card is inserted, the 

controller identifies the type of card and then connects the RDY 

signal line to contact pin 3. However, if either an MMC or SD 

card is inserted, the controller will connect an MCMD signal line 

to contact pin 3.

DISCUSSION

1. "to map"

The parties seek construction of the term "to map" as it 

appears in two independent claims of the '443 patent. Part of 

claim 1 reads: 

a controller chip to map at least a subset of the at 

least one set of contact pins to a set of signal lines 

or power lines, based on an identified type of a memory 

media card.

'443 patent at 8:53-55. The term also appears in claim 9 in 

language that is slightly, though not significantly, different. 

'443 patent at 10:3-6. 

Plaintiffs contend that the verb "to map" means "to logically 

assign," and in this case, to logically assign signals to pins, 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

depending on the type of memory card that is inserted into the 

device. Defendants argue that the term means something more

specific. They argue that the mapping terms were added during 

prosecution of the '443 patent2, and therefore the file history 

informs the scope of the claims. Specifically, they argue that 

the term "mapping" means "to vary the assignment of" because the 

term was added following a prior art rejection, and if the 

assignment of signal lines to contact pins does not vary, then the 

device is not distinguishable from prior art.

The prior art to which Defendants refer is United States 

Patent Number 6,402,558 (the Hung-Ju reference), which also taught 

an adapter capable of accommodating multiple types of memory 

cards. Defendants' Brief, Ex. 1 (Docket No. 300-1). The original

application for the '443 patent included the following language 

for claim 1: "a controller chip to differentiate a pin 

configuration based on an inserted memory media card." Office 

Action Summary (Docket No. 300-3) at TPL002547. The examiner 

rejected this claim as anticipated by Hung-Ju. Office Action 

Summary at TPL002239-40. Then, the applicant changed the language 

of claim 1 to the following: "a controller chip to map at least a 

subset of the at least one set of contact pins to a set of signal 

lines or power lines, based on an identified type of memory media 

 

2 Defendants argue, and Plaintiffs do not contest, that 

statements relating to "mapping" during the prosecution of the 

'443 patent apply equally to the '424 and '847 patents.

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

card." Office Action Summary at TPL002547. The applicant 

explained:

As shown, Hung-Ju discusses a memory media card adaptor 

suitable for different types of memory cards by 

physically "positioning contact pins and entrance slots 

in various locations". Thus, Hung-Ju suggests using 

different sets of contact pins for different types of 

memory cards. By physically placing memory cards in 

different positions in the adaptor, different contact 

pins are in contact with the memory cards. Thus, HungJu teaches away from the claim limitation using a 

controller chip to "map at least a subset of the at 

least one set of contact pins to a set of signal lines 

or power lines" where one set of pins is mapped to 

different signals depending on the type of identified 

memory card, as recited in Applicant's independent 

claims 1 and 12 [patented claims 1 and 9].

Office Action Summary at TPL002554-55 (emphasis in original). In 

sum, Hung-Ju taught a device with multiple slots and multiple sets 

of contact pins for the multiple types memory cards, but the 

application that became the '443 patent taught a device that did 

not require multiple slots and multiple contact pins but instead 

utilized a controller to map the same (or a subset of) contact 

pins to different signal lines, depending on the type of card 

inserted.

Defendants offer two separate arguments regarding how Hung-Ju 

informs the construction of the "mapping" claim. Defendants first 

argue that the specification of the '443 and '424 patents uses the 

word "mapping" in an entirely different sense than it is used in 

the claims. They point to Figure 3, described as showing a device 

with "a number of sets of contact pins," and explain that these 

different sets of contact pins exist to connect to different types 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 7 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of cards. They argue that Figures 4 and 5 describe fixed 

assignments of signal lines and different sets of contact pins, 

depending on which type of card is inserted. According to 

Defendants, this "mapping" is different from the controller chip's 

task "to map" pins to signal lines because the Figures depict a 

version of the invention that was rejected due to Hung-Ju, while 

the use of a controller "to map" pins to signal lines was added 

after the prior art rejection. 

The Court is not persuaded that it must read the "to map" 

phrases in the claims differently from the "mapping" phrases in 

the specification. It is well-established that a court looks to 

the prosecution history as well as the words of the claims 

themselves, the specification and any relevant extrinsic evidence 

when construing claims. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1312-12 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Prosecution history is 

particularly informative when it demonstrates that the inventor 

limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the 

claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be. Vitronics Corp. 

v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

"In construing terms used in patent claims, it is necessary to 

consider the specification as a whole, and to read all portions of 

the written description, if possible, in a manner that renders the 

patent internally consistent." Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 

250 F.3d 1369, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Defendants have not 

shown that the variations of the word "map" are used 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 8 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

inconsistently throughout. Rather, as Plaintiffs show, the claims

as revised following the prior art rejection are consistent with 

the description of the mapping function in the specification. 

Once a memory card is inserted, a controller chip determines what 

type of card is inserted and then maps the contact pins to signal 

lines according to the assignments shown in Figures 4 and 5. 

Indeed, the applicant specifically referred to Figure 4 in his 

discussion of "mapping" in the context of the Hung-Ju reference. 

The "mapping" terms are susceptible to a logical, internallyconsistent reading, and Defendants' argument that the Court must 

read the "mapping" phrases as having different meanings in the 

specification and the claims is without merit.

Defendants next contend that one skilled in the art would 

understand the term "to map" as used in the patents-in-suit and in 

the context of the prosecution history detailed above to mean 

varying the assignment of the signal line based upon which type of 

memory card is inserted. Defendants further urge the Court to 

specify that the use of some signal lines in some circumstances 

but not others, based upon fixed assignments, does not constitute 

mapping. Defendants argue that after the application was rejected 

due to Hung-Ju, the applicant added the mapping term, thereby 

narrowing the claim scope. Defendants show that the adapter in 

Hung-Ju contained a single slot for SD and MMC cards, and 

extrapolate that one skilled in the art would understand that the 

use of the phrase "to map" excludes such an arrangement. 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 9 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiffs respond first that Defendants' argument is less 

one of claim construction than it is of non-infringement. The 

Court agrees. If the accused devices are like the device in HungJu, with a single port and a shared set of contact pins for both 

SD and MMC cards, it may be that the accused devices do not 

infringe the patents-in-suit. However, the fact that the inventor 

distinguished prior art does not necessarily shed light on the 

definition of the terms used. First, as Plaintiffs argue, the 

applicant did not differentiate Hung-Ju on the basis that 

"mapping" required "varying assignments." The discussion blockquoted above distinguishes Hung-Ju on the basis that Hung-Ju 

utilizes multiple ports with different physical locations in the 

device while the patented invention utilizes a controller chip to 

map signals to lines, depending on the type of memory card 

inserted. It is not plain from this discussion that "mapping" 

must mean varying the assignments such that using signal lines in 

some circumstances but not in others does not constitute mapping. 

Second, the Court must give claim terms their plain and ordinary 

meaning to one of skill in the art, with two exceptions: (1) when 

the inventor acts as a lexicographer and defines a term and (2) 

when the inventor disavows the full scope of the claim term, 

either during prosecution or in the specification. Hill-Rom 

Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (citations omitted). Defendants argue neither. The Court 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 10 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

thus concludes that it must reject Defendants' proposed 

construction of "to map."

Plaintiffs propose construing "to map" as "to logically 

assign." As briefly mentioned in a footnote in their reply brief, 

and as discussed at the claim construction hearing, Plaintiffs' 

proposal includes the word "logically" in an effort to define away 

any necessity for a physical change of connections based upon the 

identification of a type of media card. This argument anticipates 

an argument made by Defendants before the ITC, but which 

Defendants did not include in their response brief. The Court 

concludes that the plain and ordinary meaning of "to map" as used 

in the patents does not necessarily speak to whether the 

assignment must be physical or logical, and making that 

determination would be beyond the scope of claim construction. 

Accordingly, the Court construes "to map" as meaning "to assign."

2. "means for mapping"

The parties seek construction of the term "means for mapping"

as it appears in four claims of the '424 patent and one claim of 

the '847 patent.

Claim 1 of the '847 patent describes a "means for mapping

power, ground or data signals between said signal lines and said 

contact pins depending upon the identification of the type of 

memory card inserted into said port; wherein the means for mapping

comprises a controller." '847 patent at 8:46-50. Claim 26 of the 

'424 patent claims an "Apparatus according to claim 25 where the 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 11 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

means for mapping comprises a controller." '424 patent at 11:12-

13. Claim 29 of the '424 patent claims an "Apparatus according to 

Claim 28 where said means for mapping comprises a controller." 

'424 patent at 12:12-13. Claims 25 and 28 describe a "means for 

mapping power, ground or data signals between said interconnection 

pins and said one or more contact pins depending upon the 

identification of the type of memory card inserted into said 

port." '424 patent at 11:8-11 and 12:8-11. 

Defendants contend that all five of the above-quoted claim 

terms are means-plus-function claims governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 

¶ 6. Defendants further contend that all five claims are invalid 

as indefinite because the patents do not disclose an algorithm to 

accomplish the function. Plaintiffs agree claims 25 and 28 of the 

'424 patent are means-plus-function claims, but argue that claim 1 

of the '847 patent and claims 26 and 29 of the '424 patent are 

not. 

The Court first considers whether claim 1 of the '847 patent 

and claims 26 and 29 of the '424 patent are means-plus-function 

claims. The text of these claims specifies that the "means for 

mapping comprises a controller." Claim terms that use the phrase 

"means for" are presumptively means-plus-function terms governed 

by § 112. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 

950 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The presumption is overcome if the claim, 

in addition to the functional language, recites sufficient 

structure to perform the recited function in its entirety. Id. 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 12 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties agree that the structure recited in claim 1 of the 

'847 patent and claims 26 and 29 of the '424 patent is "a 

controller." Plaintiffs maintain that naming a controller 

discloses sufficient structure to explain how to perform the 

mapping function described in these claims; Defendants argue that 

it does not. 

Both sides offer an expert opinion in support of their 

argument. Plaintiffs provide a declaration from their expert, 

Dale E. Buscaino, from the proceedings before the ITC. During 

those proceedings, Mr. Buscaino opined:

It is my opinion that the disclosed structure includes a 

controller or controller chip. . . . In my opinion, the 

controller or controller chip is a chip or integrated 

circuit that can manage, for example, flash memory card 

input / output, without the need for a computer or 

microprocessor and without any programmed algorithm. It 

is my opinion that a computer-less, microprocessor-less 

integrated circuit or chip can perform the function of 

"mapping power, ground or data signals. . . ." And, I 

do not view the specifications of the '847 and '424 

patents as limiting the controller or controller chip to 

require a computer or microprocessor.

Buscaino Decl., Docket No. 282-17, Ex. O. at ¶ 20. Defendants 

counter with an opinion from their expert, Dr. Gary S. Tjaden, 

that in order to accomplish the mapping function, the disclosure 

of a controller as structure is insufficient because the mapping 

function requires that the controller must be a microprocessor and 

that the microprocessor must be programmed according to a 

particular algorithm. 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 13 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court finds Plaintiffs' expert to be more persuasive. 

Defendants' argument may have been more relevant had the Court 

adopted Defendants' proposal regarding the construction of the 

term "to map." If the patents required a dynamic assignment of 

contact pins to signal lines, then a microprocessor might be 

necessary to accomplish the mapping function. Defendants' expert, 

Dr. Tjaden, opines that a microprocessor is required, but does not 

clearly identify the definition of the term "mapping" that he 

employs. Tjaden Decl. (Docket No. 300-18). It appears that he 

utilizes Defendants' proposed definition of "to map" which would 

require the controller to be capable of dynamically varying the 

assignments of signal lines to contact pins. It may well be that 

under Defendants' understanding of "to map" a microprocessor is 

necessary; however, the Court rejected Defendants' proposal as 

explained above. The Tjaden declaration does not shed much light 

on the necessity of a microprocessor under the less-stringent 

construction of "to map" as utilized in the patents and adopted by 

the Court. In contrast, Plaintiffs' expert Mr. Buscaino 

explicitly utilized the construction adopted above; he stated in 

his declaration that to "logically assign" signals, a controller 

is sufficient structure. Buscaino Decl. at ¶¶ 19-20.

Defendants' citation to Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty 

Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed Cir. 

2008), is unavailing. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that 

computer-implemented means-plus-function claims require an 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 14 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

algorithm in order to disclose sufficient structure. 521 F.3d at 

1338. But there, even the patentee acknowledged that the 

structure required a "standard microprocessor-based gaming machine 

with appropriate programming" to accomplish the recited functions. 

Id. at 1331 (internal quotations omitted). There was no argument

before that court, as there is here, that a microprocessor is not 

necessary to perform the recited functions. Instead, here, 

Plaintiffs' expert opined that the recited functions could be 

accomplished by "a computer-less, microprocessor-less integrated 

circuit or chip." The holding from Aristocrat requiring 

disclosure of an algorithm does not extend to a function that can 

be performed by an integrated circuit or chip.

Given the uncertainty surrounding Defendants' expert's 

definition of the mapping function and the likelihood that their 

expert employed a more stringent definition of the mapping 

function than the Court adopted above, the Court concludes that 

claim 1 of the '847 patent and claims 26 and 29 of the '424 

patent, which specifically state that the "means for mapping 

comprises a controller," disclose sufficient structure to overcome 

the presumption that the claims are means-plus-function claims. 

Claims 25 and 28 of the '424 patent vary slightly in that 

they do not specify structure, but rather focus on the function

performed. They claim a "means for mapping power, ground or data 

signals between said interconnection pins and said one or more 

contact pins depending upon the identification of the type of 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 15 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

memory card inserted into said port." The parties agree that 

these claims are means-plus-function claims. For such claims, 

courts utilize a two-step process in claim construction. First, 

the court must identify the function described in the claim, and 

second, the court must identify the corresponding structure for 

that function. There is no dispute that the function is 

"mapping," which, as construed above, means "assigning." The 

parties also agree that these claims disclose a controller as the 

structure. 

The controversy raised by the parties with regard to these 

claims is less about claim construction than the validity of the 

claims. Defendants argue that "a controller" is insufficient 

structure, that therefore an algorithm must be disclosed, and that 

the Court must find the claim to be invalid as indefinite because 

the patents do not disclose an algorithm. Patents are presumed 

valid and, thus, Defendants bear the burden to show that the 

claims fail as indefinite. Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco 

Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed Cir. 2010). As discussed 

above, Plaintiffs and Defendants have both offered expert 

testimony on this point; however, Defendants' expert did not 

specify the definition of the "mapping" function he considered in 

arriving at his opinion that a controller is insufficient 

structure to accomplish the function. The Court therefore 

declines to determine the validity of the claims at this time. 

Defendants will have an opportunity to put forth any invalidity 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 16 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

17

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

arguments they may have, utilizing the "mapping" terms as 

construed by the Court.

Accordingly, the Court construes "means for mapping" to have 

a function as that recited by the claims (with "mapping" as 

construed above) and construes the corresponding structure as "a 

controller." Additionally, the Court rejects Defendants' argument 

that the "means for mapping" term is indefinite, without prejudice 

to Defendants' reasserting the argument with appropriate evidence 

at summary judgment or trial.

3. "means for [identifying/determining] the type of memory 

card inserted into said port"

This phrase appears in claims 25 and 28 of the '424 patent 

and claim 2 of the '847 patent. The '424 patent twice describes a 

"means for identifying the type of memory card inserted into said 

port." '424 patent at 11:6-7 and 12:6-7. The '847 patent 

describes an apparatus "where said controller comprises means for 

determining the type of memory card inserted into said port." 

'847 patent at 8:51-54.

The parties agree that these phrases are means-plus-function 

claims governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and they agree that the 

function is identifying the type of memory card inserted into the 

port. The parties dispute the corresponding structure. 

Plaintiffs maintain that the structure is a controller. 

Defendants argue that more is required, and that the structure is 

"a controller and card detect lines for the various cards, wherein 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 17 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

18

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

the card detect lines for at least one type of memory card is 

multiplexed with data bus lines for at least one other type of 

card." Defendants' Brief at 20.

Title 35 provides that the "specification shall conclude with 

one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly 

claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his 

invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The test for whether the 

disclosure is sufficient is considered from the perspective of a 

person of skill in the art. Telcordia, 612 F.3d at 1377. "While 

corresponding structure need not include all things necessary to 

enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all 

structure that actually performs the recited function." Default 

Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 

1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

In their briefs and presentations at the claim construction 

hearing, the parties dispute what structure is necessary to 

perform the stated function. First, Defendants argue that card 

detect lines are required to perform the identifying function, 

while Plaintiffs contend that they are not. The patents state 

that detection of card type is determined by which of the card 

detect lines pulls to low voltage, and it is through this signal 

on the card detect lines that the controller knows which type of 

card is inserted into the device. '424 patent at 6:44-46. The 

card detect lines are a necessary part of the structure that 

actually performs the identification function. Thus, disclosure 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 18 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

19

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

of the controller and card detect lines as the structure satisfies 

the requirement that the disclosure "include all structure that 

actually performs the recited function." Default Proof Credit 

Card Sys., 412 F.3d at 1298. 

Next, Defendants argue that the card detect lines must be 

multiplexed with signal lines. They point out that the 

specification's discussion of the SmartMedia and xD cards includes 

data bus lines that are "multiplexed to serve as card-detect 

lines." Defendants do not effectively reply to Plaintiffs' 

response that in some embodiments no multiplexing is required. 

Plaintiffs show that if the invention is implemented in a device 

that reads only the Mini SD, RS MMC and Memory Stick Duo types of 

media memory cards, none of the card detect lines must be 

multiplexed. This is because, as illustrated in Figure 5, each of 

these types of memory cards utilizes different card detect lines. 

In this embodiment, each card has its own non-multiplexed card 

detect line that is not shared with any other card type. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the data lines may be 

multiplexed, but it is not necessary that they be multiplexed in 

all embodiments of the patent.

At the claim construction hearing, Plaintiffs offered MCMD 

command signals as another component for the structure of this 

claim. Defendants countered that the MCMD command signals, while 

mentioned in the patent, are not clearly linked to the function of 

identifying the type of card, and therefore MCMD command signals 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 19 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

20

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

cannot be cited as structure for the means-plus-function claim. 

Biomedino, 490 F.3d at 950. Plaintiffs referred the Court to 

paragraph 40 of the Buscaino declaration, which provides:

There are a number of structures disclosed in the '424 

and '847 patent specifications that are involved in the 

card identification process. . . . Further, Figures 4 

and 5 of the '424 and '847 patents disclose MCMD, which 

refers to a pin and corresponding control signal line 

used by the controller for sending commands and by SD 

and MMC cards for issuing responses back to the 

controller. In addition, the '424 and '847 patents 

disclose "control signals" in column 6, lines 51-53 and 

column 5, lines 52-54, respectively. Control signals 

include signals issued by the controller to a card that 

include initialization commands. Initialization 

commands disclosed in the SD specification, such as 

CMD0, ACMD41, CMD2, and CMD3, are conveyed along the 

MCMD control signal line and are used by the controller 

to distinguish between SD and MMC cards. Responses from 

SD and MMC cards are also conveyed along the MCMD 

controls signal line.

Buscaino Decl. at ¶ 40. The Court agrees with Defendants that 

MCMD was not clearly linked to the function of identifying the 

card type, and takes each argument quoted above in turn. First, 

it is true that "MCMD" appears in Figures 4 and 5 of the patents, 

but it appears only as a mapping of a contact pin to a signal line

and without any explanation regarding function. The citation to 

the disclosure of control signals in the '424 and '847 patents is 

similarly unhelpful to Plaintiffs; the cited passage refers to

control signals found in the pin mappings for smart media cards, 

not MMC/SD cards, and does not refer to MCMD. And finally, the SD 

specification, an extrinsic document, is of little assistance 

because the inquiry is limited to the written description in the 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 20 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

21

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

patents themselves. For these reasons, the Court does not find 

that MCMD command signals are part of the recited structure of 

this claim.

Accordingly, the Court construes the function as that recited 

by the claims and construes the corresponding structure as "a 

controller and card detect lines."

4. "Contact pins integrated within [the] molded plastic"

This phrase appears in claims 1 and 9 of the '443 patent. 

Claim 1 describes contact pins, ". . . wherein the at least one 

set of contact pins are integrated within the molded plastic of 

the first planar element or the second planar element." '443 

patent at 8:49-53. The term appears in claim 9 in language that 

is slightly, though not significantly, different. '443 patent at 

9:27-10:2. Plaintiffs contend that no construction is necessary 

because the phrase is readily comprehensible by a finder of fact. 

Defendants argue that intrinsic evidence supports giving the term 

a limited construction, that the pins are "embedded" in the 

plastic, and so-called floating pins are excluded. Defendants' 

Brief at 25. 

Defendants first argue that the specification teaches away 

from floating pins. The specification discusses the floating pins 

of the prior art and points out several disadvantages, including: 

floating pins are subject to damage and deterioration, their 

resiliency is reduced through use which may eventually make it 

more difficult for cards to make connection, and improper 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 21 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

22

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

insertion of memory cards may result in damage to the pins. '443 

patent at 2:66-3:10. The specification further states that the 

invention overcomes these problems because the pins are "formed 

from injected contacts with protruding pins." '443 patent at 

5:26-27. Defendants maintain that these statements show that 

floating pins are not included in the specification. The Court 

disagrees with this argument for two related reasons. First, 

Defendants overlook the words preceding the above-quoted phrase; 

the complete phrase actually remarks, "For an embodiment in which 

the planar elements are formed from molded plastic, contact pin 

sets may be formed from injected contacts with protruding pins."

'443 patent at 5:24-27 (figure numerals omitted; emphasis added). 

Thus the specification leaves open the possibility that the pins 

may be "formed from injected contacts" in an embodiment, but also 

that they may not in other embodiments. Second, the '443 patent 

explains the advantages of "one embodiment" of the invention as 

having pins that retain resiliency more than floating pins. '443 

patent at 4:23-26. This may be read to imply that other 

embodiments of the patent include floating pins. That a patent 

criticizes existing technology does not necessarily preclude 

incorporation of that technology. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't 

Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Mere criticism of 

a particular embodiment encompassed in the plain meaning of a 

claim term is not sufficient to rise to the level of clear 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 22 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

23

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

disavowal."). The Court thus concludes that the claims do not 

necessarily disallow the use of floating pins in every embodiment. 

Defendants also argue that the applicant disclaimed floating 

pins during the prosecution of the '443 patent. It is true, as 

noted above, that "the prosecution history (or file wrapper) 

limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any 

interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during 

prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance." Standard Oil Co. 

v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

Patentees are not entitled to the broad, plain and ordinary 

meaning of a claim term if they have made a clear disavowal of 

claim scope. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367. The court may only find 

disavowal if there is "a clear and explicit statement by the 

patentee." Id. Defendants point to the prosecution history, and 

contend that the applicant explicitly disclaimed floating pins in 

response to the prior art rejection citing Hung-Ju. However, a 

close look at the relevant discussion reveals that the applicant 

pointed out only that the invention has contacts pins that are 

"integrated within the molded plastic" in contrast to Hung-Ju 

which teaches pins that are "of a floating structure sitting on an 

exterior or interior surface." Office Action Summary at 

TPL002556-57. The parties have not provided the Court with a 

comprehensive definition of what a floating pin is, and the 

discussion during the claim construction hearing yielded examples 

but nothing definitive. It may be that pins "of a floating 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 23 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

24

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

structure sitting on an exterior or interior surface" are only one 

variation of floating pins, and in excluding all floating pins the 

Court would read the discussion of Hung-Ju too broadly. Based on 

the record before the Court, the Court is unwilling to find that 

the applicant's statement during prosecution constituted a clear 

and explicit disavowal of floating pins of every possible nature. 

The Court will not define the claim term with reference to 

"floating contact pins." Nonetheless, the Court disagrees with 

Plaintiffs' argument that no construction is necessary of the 

claim term "contact pins integrated within [the] molded plastic."

The Court will, therefore, further define the term. Defendants 

argue that the term should be construed to mean "embedded within 

molded plastic." Defendants' Brief at 24. At the ITC, the ALJ 

agreed with Defendants, noting that part of the specification 

describes the advantages of the pins being "embedded" in the 

molded plastic. ALJ Claim Construction at 23 (quoting '443 patent 

at 7:67-8:3). The Court agrees with this construction. The 

purpose behind "integrating" the pins into the plastic is to build 

a physical structure that is sturdier than if the pins were merely 

resting upon the plastic. Construction of the term to require 

that the contact pins be embedded--that is, firmly fixed--in the 

molded plastic reflects that stated purpose. Accordingly, the 

Court construes "contact pins integrated within the molded 

plastic" to mean "contact pins embedded within the molded 

plastic."

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 24 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

25

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

5. "interconnection means"

This phrase appears in claims 25 and 28 of the '424 patent, 

and claim 1 of the '847 patent. Claim 25 of the '424 patent 

describes "an interconnection means having a plurality of 

interconnection pins". '424 patent at 10:66-67. Claim 28 of the 

'424 patent describes "a set of signal lines connected to an 

interconnection means." '424 patent at 12:5. Finally, claim 1 of 

the '847 patent describes:

a set of signal lines connected to a controller, 

the number of signal lines being fewer than the number 

of contact pins; the signal lines located between the 

controller and an interconnection means; 

said interconnection means being located between 

the signal lines and the plurality of sets of contact 

connecting said signal lines to said one or more contact 

pins[.]

'847 patent at 8:39-46. Plaintiffs argue that the term 

"interconnection means" should be construed as "conductive 

elements that electrically connect." Plaintiffs' Brief at 20. 

Defendants argue that the term means "conductive structures 

separate and distinct from contact pins." Defendants' Brief at 

28.

The Court agrees with Defendants. This construction is 

supported by the specification. The '424 patent describes 

"[i]nterconnects that electrically connect the standard connector 

to contact pins." '424 patent at 5:42-43 (figure numerals 

omitted). The interconnects (or interconnection means) are 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 25 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

26

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

separate structures placed between the connector and the contact 

pins. Additionally, claims 25 and 28 both require a "means for 

mapping" between the interconnection means and the contact pins. 

'424 patent at 11:8-10 and 12:8-10. In order to map signals 

between interconnection means and contact pins, those two elements 

must be separate and distinct structures. This understanding is 

also supported by the '847 patent, where claim 1 requires an 

interconnection means that "connect[s] said signal lines to one or 

more contact pins." Plaintiffs contend that there is no intrinsic 

evidence requiring that the interconnection means must be separate 

from the contact pins. However, Plaintiffs do not address or 

rebut Defendants' arguments. The Court concludes that if there is 

a means for mapping signals between interconnection means and 

contact pins, these two elements must be separate and distinct 

because if they are the same structures then the claimed mapping 

cannot occur. Accordingly, the Court construes "interconnection 

means" to mean "conductive structures separate and distinct from 

contact pins."

6. "memory media card"

This phrase appears in claims 1 and 9 of the '443 patent, in 

claims 25 and 28 of the '424 patent, and in claim 1 of the '847 

patent. Claim 1 of the '443 patent describes a physical structure 

creating a "port capable of receiving a memory media card" and a 

controller chip to map contact pins to signal lines, "based on an 

identified type of a memory media card." '443 patent at 8:42 and 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 26 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

27

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

8:54-56. The term also appears in claims 25 and 28 of the '424 

patent, and in claim 1 of the '847 patent in language that is 

slightly, though not significantly, different. '424 patent at 

11:4 and 12:4; '847 patent at 8:37.

Plaintiffs contend that the term is readily comprehensible to 

a finder of fact and no further construction is necessary. As 

discussed at the claim construction hearing, the Court disagrees 

with Plaintiffs, and finds that some definition of the term is 

necessary to assist in the adjudication of the parties' dispute. 

At the hearing, when asked to offer a construction of the term, 

Plaintiffs emphasized the requirement that the memory media card 

be capable of storing large digital files, such as video or 

photographs. Defendants proposed construing the term as "a 

removable module capable of storing electronic data." Defendants' 

Brief at 29. 

The Court adopts Defendants' proposal. The word "media" 

could be read either as describing a structure upon which data is 

written or as describing the content that is written, for example 

video or pictures. The Court finds that the word is used to 

describe the former. First, the patents do not limit the term to 

require that the card be capable of storing video or photographs. 

The actual content of the card is not discussed in the patents; 

there is no mention of video, photographs or pictures. Second, 

while the patents provide examples of cards that are capable of 

storing media content, the specification specifically states, "In 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 27 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

28

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

general, embodiments of the invention are applicable to any 

generic flash media." '443 patent at 8:23-24; '424 patent at 

8:35-36; '847 patent at 8:24-25. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs 

cite the above-quoted passage, but they do not explain why the 

term "media" refers to content, or why the card must be capable of 

storing large digital files, as they contend.

Finally, in lieu of Defendants' suggestion to utilize the 

word "module," a technical term that is not defined in the record, 

the Court will use the more familiar word "device," as discussed 

at the claim construction hearing. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the term "memory media 

card" means "a removable device capable of storing electronic 

data."

7. "type of memory [media] card"

This phrase appears in claims 1 and 9 of the '443 patent, in 

claims 25 and 28 of the '424 patent, and in claim 1 of the '847 

patent. The '443 patent describes that the controller chip maps 

contact pins to signal lines, "based on an identified type of a

memory media card." '443 patent at 8:54-56. The term appears in 

claim 9 of the '443 patent, claims 25 and 28 of the '424 patent, 

and in claim 1 of the '847 patent in language that is slightly, 

though not significantly, different. '443 patent at 10:6; '424 

patent at 11:6 and 12:10-11; '847 patent at 8:48. 

Plaintiffs contend that this term requires no construction. 

Defendants propose the following: "different 'types of memory 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 28 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

29

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

media cards' have incompatible electrical and physical interfaces. 

For purposes of mapping/identifying in these claims, MMC/SD is a 

single type of memory media card." Defendants' Brief at 31.

The Court rejects Defendants' proposal. The intrinsic 

evidence does not support a conclusion that the applicant clearly 

limited the term to mean that MMC and SD cards are a single type 

of memory media card. Instead, as Plaintiffs show, the applicant 

differentiated MMC and SD cards in Figure 1 and in the 

specification. Plaintiffs' Brief at 21-22 (quoting '424 patent at 

2:2-4) ("MultiMediaCard 141 or Secure Digital card 153 . . . have 

. . . different pin-out."). The applicant also differentiated MMC 

and SD cards during prosecution, explaining that Figures 4 and 5 

show the sets of contact pins utilized depending upon the type of 

card inserted, and specifying that "MMC and SD are themselves 

different card types." '847 File History, Ex. I. In light of the 

instances in the record where MMC and SD cards are specifically 

referred to as different "types" of cards, the Court rejects the 

second sentence of Defendants' proposal as unsupported by the 

record.

The Court also rejects the first half of Defendants' 

proposal, that different types of cards must have incompatible 

electrical and physical interfaces, as unsupported by the record. 

The concept of incompatibility is not well-defined in the 

materials before the Court; indeed, Defendants do not use, much 

less define, the term in their brief urging the Court to adopt a 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 29 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

30

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

definition relying on that term. Moreover, the word 

"incompatible" is used only once in each patent, each time 

discussing compatibility of adapter cards with laptop devices, 

another context entirely. '443 patent at 3:14-16; '424 patent at 

3:14-16; '847 patent at 3:2-3. Thus the Court declines to 

construe the claim term using the word "compatibility." 

In their briefs, Plaintiffs contend that no construction is 

necessary. The Court disagrees and finds that definition of the 

term will assist in further adjudication of this case. At the 

claim construction hearing Plaintiffs proposed a definition that 

different types of cards have different numbers of contact pins or 

use those contact pins differently. When asked, Defendants did 

not articulate a reason why the Court should not adopt Plaintiffs' 

proposal. The Court finds that this definition is supported by 

the intrinsic evidence, given the patents' emphasis on assigning 

contact pins to signal lines upon detecting the type of card; it 

makes sense that if the card's contact pins are different in 

number or differently used, this would constitute a different type 

of card, affecting how the controller maps the signals. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the term "type of memory 

[media] card" means a "subset of memory media cards containing 

different numbers of contact pins or using contact pins 

differently." 

CONCLUSION

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 30 of 31
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

31

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

For the reasons explained above, the Court construes the 

disputed claims as follows:

Term Court's Construction

1. "to map" "to assign"

2. "means for mapping" Function: "mapping"

Structure: "a controller"

3. "means for 

[identifying/determining] the 

type of memory card inserted 

into said port"

Function: 

"[identifying/determining] the 

type of memory card inserted 

into said port"

Structure: "a controller and 

card detect lines"

4. "Contact pins integrated 

within molded plastic"

"contact pins embedded within 

molded plastic"

5. "Interconnection means" "conductive structures separate 

and distinct from contact pins"

6. "memory media card" "a removable device capable of 

storing electronic data"

7. "type of memory [media] card" "subset of memory media cards 

containing different numbers of 

contact pins or using contact 

pins differently"

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 18, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 334 Filed 09/18/15 Page 31 of 31