Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03640/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03640-46/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 GRANTING

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 479)

Defendants Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc. (collectively 

Canon) file this motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs 

Technology Properties Limited LLC and MCM Portfolio LLC. As 

explained below, the Court grants Canon's motion because Canon's 

products do not infringe the patents-in-suit.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs assert two patents in this case: Patent Numbers 

7,295,443 (the '443 patent) and 7,522,424 (the '424 patent). The 

patents describe technology that enables devices to read different 

types of removable memory cards. The parties do not dispute that 

the '424 patent is a continuation of the '443 patent and that the 

two patents contain the same figures and specification, except for 

a few sentences that were added during the prosecution of the '424 

patent. Additionally, the parties do not dispute the following 

facts concerning two types of removable memory cards: SD Cards and 

MMC Cards. SD cards have nine contact pads, numbered one through 

nine, while MMC cards have seven contact pads, numbered one 

through seven. For both cards, the signal on pins two through 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11
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

seven are identical, with seven used for data. The SD card uses 

four signal lines in total for data, while the MMC card uses only 

one: number seven.

Plaintiffs assert that many Canon products have infringed the 

patents. The parties have agreed to six representative products. 

Docket Nos. 413, 416. Plaintiffs allege that at least one of the 

representative products infringes each of the following claims: 

claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 of the '443 patent and claims 

25, 26, 28 and 29 of the '424 patent. Response Br. at 3 n.3; 

Busciano Dec., Ex. A, Busciano Opening ¶¶ 101-04. The four 

independent claims within this set discuss mapping:

Claim 1, '443 patent: "A multi-memory media adapter 

comprising . . . 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."

Claim 9, '443 patent: "A system comprising . . . a controller 

integrated into the multi-memory media adapter to map at 

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

lines or power lines, based an [sic] identified type of the 

memory media card."

Claim 25, '424 patent: "Apparatus comprising . . . 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."

Claim 28, '424 patent: "Apparatus comprising . . . means for 

mapping power, ground or data signals between said 

interconnection means and said one or more contact pins 

depending upon the identification of the type of memory card 

inserted into said port."

The mapping terms were added during the prosecution of the '443 

patent in light of the Hung-Ju patent, described below.

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 11
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

The Court construed the claims in an Order dated September 

18, 2015. Docket No. 334, Claim Construction Order.1 There, the 

Court concluded that "to map" means "to assign," id. at 11, and 

that "means for mapping" is a means plus function claim in which 

mapping is the function and the structure is "a controller," id.

at 17. The Court noted that it was beyond the scope of claim 

construction to conclude whether "mapping" must be physical or 

logical. Id. at 11. Also, the Court declined to incorporate into 

its construction that "'mapping' must mean varying the assignments 

such that using signal lines in some circumstances but not in 

others does not constitute mapping." Id. at 10. Specifically, 

the Court declined Canon's invitation to further limit the terms 

in a way that excludes card readers that accept SD and MMC memory 

cards in the same slot using a shared set of contact pins. The 

Court reasoned that Canon's argument was less one of claim 

construction than it was of non-infringement. It explained that 

if the accused devices have "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." Id.

Canon makes two main arguments in its motion for summary 

judgment: 1) Canon did not infringe the patents because 

Plaintiffs' reading of the Claim Construction Order is overbroad; 

and 2) if Plaintiffs' reading is correct then the patents are 

invalid based on prior art. Plaintiffs argue that a genuine 

dispute of material fact exists as to each of these issues, 

 

1 This order was later amended. Docket No. 359. The 

amendment did not impact the construction of the terms at issue 

here.

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 11
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

particularly because Canon mischaracterizes Plaintiffs' reading of 

the Claim Construction Order. Because the Court concludes that 

Canon did not infringe the patents, it need not decide the issues 

related to invalidity.

LEGAL STANDARD

In patent cases, the parties' burdens on summary judgment 

differ based on whether the moving party has the burden of proof 

on the issue at trial. Where a moving party does not have the 

burden of proof, it "nonetheless bears the initial burden of 

coming forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there 

is no material issue of fact that would preclude summary judgment, 

and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Vivid 

Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 806 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999). The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who 

need only show that the moving party is not entitled to judgment 

or that there are material issues of fact. Id. at 806-07. By 

contrast, where the moving party has the burden of proof on an 

issue at trial, it must show that there is no genuine issue of 

material fact as to every element of that issue. See Meyers v. 

Asics Corp., 974 F.2d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Canon is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement only 

if the facts and inferences, when viewed in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiffs, would not persuade a reasonable jury to 

return a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs. Bus. Objects, S.A. v. 

Microstrategy, Inc., 393 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 

(1986)). "Summary judgment of noninfringement is proper when no 

reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 11
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

properly constructed claim is found in the accused device either 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents." Advanced Steel 

Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc., 808 F.3d 1313, 1317 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015).

DISCUSSION

To establish literal infringement2 following claim 

construction, "every limitation set forth in a claim must be found 

in an accused product, exactly." Southwall Techs., Inc. v. 

Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Literal 

infringement is an issue of fact. Id.

Canon argues that its controller does not assign anything, 

but rather "merely implements the SD and MMC standards." Reply 

Br. at 4. The "connection paths along which signals travel . . . 

are predetermined in advance." Stevenson Dec. ¶ 66. The only 

difference is that three of the pins are not used for MMC cards 

but those three pins are used for data for SD cards. See id.

¶¶ 62-63. Plaintiffs argue that the controller assigns signals to 

signal lines based on whether an SD or MMC card is identified. 

The controller both assigns contact pins to signal lines and 

assigns signals between interconnection means and contact pins. 

Buscaino Opening ¶¶ 70-92. In particular, three signal lines that 

are not used in MMC cards are assigned data in SD cards. Further, 

the four SD data contact pads that accept data receive parallel 

data signals, while the one MMC data contact pad receives serial 

data signals. Id. This means that one contact pad switches 

 

2 Plaintiffs make no argument regarding the doctrine of 

equivalents in opposing this motion.

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 11
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

between parallel and serial data signals depending on the card 

inserted.

The mapping claim limitations were first added during 

prosecution of the ’443 patent to overcome a § 102 rejection based 

on the Hung-Ju patent (Patent Number 6,402,558). Hertko Dec., Ex. 

11, Hung-Ju. The original, pre-amended claims were directed to a 

memory card adapter with multiple slots of varying sizes, each 

equipped with a unique set of contact pins that come into contact 

with a corresponding memory card. The examiner rejected the 

claims based on Hung-Ju, which disclosed a memory card adapter 

“suitable for different types of memory cards by physically 

‘positioning contact pins and entrance slots in various 

locations.’” Hertko Dec., Ex. 10 at 2554. In response to the 

examiner’s rejection, the applicant amended patented claims 1 as 

described above. In distinguishing the amended claims from HungJu, the applicant stated:

As shown, Hung-Ju discusses a memory 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, Hung-Ju 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]. 

Id. at 2554-55 (emphasis in original).

By changing the claims from using different sets of contact 

pins for different memory cards to using only one set of contact 

pins for a variety of memory cards, the amended claims mark a 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 6 of 11
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

significant departure from the nature of the originally claimed 

invention. However, the applicant maintained that the amended 

claims were supported by the original specification, particularly 

pointing to Figure 4 in the specification as an example. Id. at 

2554.

Figure 4 of the ’443 patent shows an embodiment of the 

invention that utilizes twenty-one shared connector pins to 

accommodate three different types of memory cards--namely, Smart 

Media, MMC/SD, and Memory Stick--each with its own distinctive 

pin-outs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand

from this table that, upon insertion of a Smart Media card, the 

controller will “map” or “assign” the nineteen requisite Smart 

Media card signals (e.g., D0/-WPSW, D1, D2) to the connector pins 

1-19. Alternatively, when an MMC or a SD card is inserted, the 

controller will “map” or “assign” the nine requisite MMC/SD card 

signals (e.g., -WP, -CD, MCMD) to connector pins 2-4, 10-13, 18, 

20, and 21. When a Memory Stick card is inserted, the controller 

will “map” or “assign” the six requisite Memory Stick card signals 

(e.g., -CD, BS, SDIO) to connector pins 5-7, 18, 20, and 21. 

However, and significantly, Figure 4 makes no distinction 

between MMC and SD cards, putting them in the same column and 

treating them as a single entity. In fact, throughout the 

specification of the patents-in-suit, MMC and SD cards are 

consistently treated as one and the same. The specification

refers to the duo as “MMC/SD” twenty-two times, without making any 

distinction between them, despite their well-known differences. 

In particular, Figure 2 of the patents-in-suit shows a “Prior Art” 

multimedia card adapter as having a set of nine contact pins (214) 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 7 of 11
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

that “provide interfaces for MMC/SD.” See, e.g., ’443 Patent at 

2:24-28. According to the patents, this adapter was “available as 

a standard commercial product” at the time of the invention. Id.

at 2:9-10.

Hung-Ju likewise described MMC and SD cards as sharing a slot 

and a set of contact pins. Specifically, Hung-Ju described its 

Figure 1, which shows a multimedia card adapter with a single slot 

106b and one set of contact pins 104b for both MMC and SD cards, 

as follows: “The card insertion slot 106b can accommodate a multimedia card [i.e., MMC card] or a digital card [i.e., SD card]. 

Because the eight contact pins 104b are fixed at appropriate 

position on the lower frame 102b, the multi-media card [MMC] or 

the digital card [SD] can be inserted into the card insertion slot 

106b with the input/output contact points facing down.” Hung-Ju 

at 3:31-36.

MMC and SD cards are treated interchangeably in the 

specification of the patents-in-suit and in Hung-Ju because the SD 

card was designed such that an MMC card could be inserted into an 

SD card socket--that is, they could share a single slot. Hertko 

Dec., Ex. 6, SD Specification at 19-20. As explained above, the 

primary differences between SD and MMC cards are that the newer SD 

cards have nine contact pins/pads (four of which are for data) and 

are capable of transferring data either serially on one data pin 

or in parallel (i.e., four bits at a time) on all four data pins 

while the MMC cards have seven contact pins/pads (only one of 

which is for data) and can only transfer data serially (i.e., one 

bit at a time). Hertko Dec, Ex. 5, Infringement Contention Chart 

at 3.

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 8 of 11
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

Yet Plaintiffs’ infringement theory is based essentially on 

the accused products’ use of a slot with a shared set of contact 

pins for MMC and SD cards in compliance with the SD Specification. 

Specifically, the accused products are Canon printer/copiers, 

digital cameras, and card readers that include multi-memory card 

connectors for receiving at least SD and MMC memory media cards. 

Buscaino Opening ¶¶ 53, 55. Plaintiffs contend that the accused 

products infringe the “mapping” limitations in the ’443 patent in 

the following manner. When the controller identified the presence 

of an SD card, it would assign four parallel data signals to four 

data signal lines, thereby assigning four contact pins to four 

data signal lines. When the controller identified the presence of 

an MMC card, it would assign one serial data signal to one of the 

four data signal lines, thereby assigning one contact pin to one 

data signal line. Opp. Br. at 5-6. Thus, Plaintiffs’ 

infringement contention with regard to the “mapping” limitation 

bears no discernable difference from the initialization and data 

transfer process as set forth in the SD Specification.

The International Trade Commission's opinion further supports 

the Court's conclusion that reading an SD or MMC card in the Canon 

Products requires no mapping. It found that, "in order to 

communicate with the SD and MMC cards, no mapping is required. 

Similarly, the mere use of additional signal lines in some 

circumstances but not others, based upon fixed assignments, does 

not constitute mapping." Hertko Dec., Ex. 22 at 21.

Plaintiffs also contend that “Canon’s [non-infringement] 

argument ignores the entirety of the mapping limitations which are 

found in the accused products, but absent in the SD 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 9 of 11
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

Specification.” Opp. Br. at 9. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend

that infringement of the mapping limitations is not based solely 

on sharing a set of contact pins or supporting more than one type 

of memory card in the same slot, but relates, among other things, 

to how the controller assigns signals to signal lines based on the 

identified type of memory card that has been inserted and how the 

signal lines, interconnection pins or means, and contact pins are 

arranged. In particular, Plaintiffs contend that the “mapping” 

limitations require “common physical connection to the 

controller,” id. at 14, which is found in the accused products but 

not in the SD Specification. However, Plaintiffs fail to offer 

any evidence from the patent or the prosecution history that 

supports a construction that “mapping” requires “common physical 

connection to the controller.” To the extent that Plaintiffs are 

arguing that the phrase “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” in the ‘443 patent should be construed as “a 

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

of contact pins to a common set of signal lines or power lines,”

such a construction is unwarranted. 

Plaintiffs also contend that transferring data in parallel or 

in serial constitutes mapping. See Opp. Br. at 14. However, 

claim 25 of the '424 patent, for example, does not distinguish 

between different types of data; instead, it describes "mapping 

power, ground or data signals." Further, as described above, SD 

cards are capable of transferring data either serially or in 

parallel. Having the capacity to transfer data in either form 

does not amount to assignment.

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 10 of 11
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

Because the patents-in-suit and Hung-Ju make clear references 

to MMC/SD cards, and because it was well-known at the time of the 

invention that the implementation of MMC/SD cards is controlled by 

the SD Specification that dictates how the cards share a slot and 

a set of contact pins, the claimed “mapping” limitations are not 

met by the functionality of accepting SD and MMC memory cards in 

the same slot using a shared set of contact pins. Because the 

accused Canon products accept SD and MMC memory cards in 

compliance with the SD Specification, and because no "assignment"

occurs, the Canon products do not infringe the mapping limitations 

here.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Canon's motion for summary judgment that 

Canon’s accused products do not infringe Plaintiffs’ asserted 

patents. Canon’s invalidity claims are moot. The Court directs 

the Clerk's Office to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and 

against Plaintiffs in this case. Defendants shall recover their 

costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 16, 2016

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 527 Filed 09/16/16 Page 11 of 11