Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885-85/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT 

LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS 

Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG 

ORDER DENYING ASUS’S REQUEST 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN 

ADDITIONAL MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Re: Dkt. No. 971 

 

Pending before the Court is Defendants ASUS Computer International and ASUSTeK 

Computer Inc.’s (collectively, “ASUS”) request for leave to file an additional motion for summary 

judgment. Dkt. No. 971 at 2. ASUS asserts that the Federal Circuit decision in Koninklijke 

Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020), demonstrates that claim 12 of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,529,806 (the “’806 Patent”) is invalid. Specifically, ASUS argues that in affirming 

the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) finding that claim 1 of the ’806 Patent is 

invalid, the Federal Circuit adopted interpretations of claim 12 terms “media presentation” and 

“identifying,” “determining,” and “retrieving” that preclude the patentee’s validity arguments. 

Claim construction is a question of law. Teva Pharmas. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 

U.S. 318, 325 (2015). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit’s claim constructions are binding on this 

Court under stare decisis. See Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see 

also Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 946, 963-64 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 

However, “stare decisis applies only to legal issues that were actually decided in a prior action.” 

Beacon Oil Co. v. O’Leary, 71 F.3d 391, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that stare decisis did not 

apply to issues that were not disputed in the prior case). Here, the Federal Circuit expressly 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 997 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

declined to address the parties’ claim construction dispute regarding the term “a given segment of 

[a/the] media presentation.” Philips, 948 F.3d at 1334 n.5. There is also no evidence that the 

court addressed constructions for “identifying,” “determining,” and “retrieving.”1 Accordingly, 

the claim construction issues were not actually addressed and decided by the Federal Circuit and 

the Court is not bound by the underlying PTAB interpretations. 

Nor does collateral estoppel resolve the dispute. “Because the [PTAB] applies the broadest 

reasonable construction of the claims while the district courts apply a different standard of claim 

construction as explored in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), the 

issue of claim construction under Phillips to be determined by the district court has not actually 

been litigated.” SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Deca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Moreover, even assuming that one of these doctrines applied, ASUS’s dispute centers on the 

application of the constructions, not the constructions themselves. The PTAB’s construction of “a 

given segment of [a/the] media presentation” is entirely consistent with the construction for 

“media presentation” adopted in this case. Compare IPR2017-00447, Paper 29, at 8 n.4, with Dkt. 

No. 241 at 7. If ASUS believes that Philips’s validity interpretation is contrary to those 

constructions, it could have brought its motion by the dispositive motion deadline.2

// 

// 

// 

1

 According to ASUS, Philips seeks to interpret “media presentation” as requiring “data that has 

been split into multiple segments” and also to require the “identifying,” “determining” and 

“retrieving” steps to be performed twice. Dkt. No. 971 at 3. The Federal Circuit did not consider 

these issues: the appeal was limited to the PTAB’s consideration of grounds not raised in the 

petition, the use of “general knowledge” to supply missing limitations, and the factual findings 

related to obviousness. See 948 F.3d at 1335, 1338-39. 

2

 To the extent ASUS claims there is an unresolved dispute as to the proper construction of terms 

that were not previously construed (or that were not construed with sufficient specificity to resolve 

the dispute), that issue can be resolved through supplemental claim construction proceedings 

before trial if necessary, if the case does not resolve at the upcoming mediation. See O2 Micro 

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

that “[w]hen the parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of . . . claims, the court, 

not the jury, must resolve that dispute”). 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 997 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

For these reasons, the Court DENIES ASUS’s motion for leave to bring a second motion 

for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 5/26/2020 

 

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 997 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 3