IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00571-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00578-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00583-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00584-ADA

PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 16
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Authorities....................................................................................................................... iii

Exhibits............................................................................................................................................v

I. LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................1

A. General Claim Construction Principles ...................................................................1

B. Means-Plus-Function Claiming ...............................................................................2

C. Indefiniteness...........................................................................................................3

II. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,777,728 (Case No. 6:20-cv-00583-ADA) ........................................4

A. Disputed Term .........................................................................................................4

1. “tap direction” (Claims 1, 11, 16)............................................................... 4

III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,817,585 (Case No. 6:20-cv-00571-ADA) ........................................5

IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,803,697 (Case No. 6:20-cv-00584-ADA) ........................................5

V. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,335,825 (Case No. 6:20-cv-00578-ADA) ........................................6

A. Disputed Term .........................................................................................................6

1. “continuous wave doppler radar” (Claims 1 and 19).................................. 6

2. “at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with 

the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least: 

detect that an application is being started on the apparatus; 

in response to the application being started on the apparatus, turn on a continuous 

wave doppler radar at the apparatus” (Claim 1) ..................................................... 8

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 16
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,

725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..............................................................................2

Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,

156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..............................................................................1

Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,

915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir.).........................................................................................4

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,

899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................... 2, 3, 8

Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc.,

381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................1

LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.,

453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................8, 9

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,

358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................1

Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,

525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................2

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,

572 U.S. 898 (2014)...............................................................................................3

Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,

675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................3

Old Town Canoe Co. v. Confluence Holdings Corp.,

448 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................2

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................1

Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,

378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................5

Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,

844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................3

Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,

988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................5

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,

669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................2

Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

4:18-CV-474, 2019 WL 4259020 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019) ................................9

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,

90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................2

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 3 of 16
iv

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,

792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................2, 3

Statutes

36 U.S.C. § 112..........................................................................................................2

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 4 of 16
v

EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description

A Wikipedia, Continuous Wave Radar,

https://web.archive.org/web/20120418124039/http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Continuouswave_radar (archived Apr. 18, 2012)

B Federation of American Scientists, ES310: Introduction to Naval Weapons Engineering 

Course Syllabus, Lesson 10: Continuous Wave Radar,

https://web.archive.org/web/20091227095356/https://fas.org/man/dod101/navy/docs/es310/cwradar/cwradar.htm (archived Dec. 27, 2009)

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 5 of 16
1

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos License and Development (“WSOU”)

submits the following Opening Claim Construction Brief pursuant to the Orders Governing 

Proceedings and Scheduling Orders in the above-listed cases.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. General Claim Construction Principles

Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); accord Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 

381 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and quotations omitted) (“[N]ormal rules of usage 

create a ‘heavy presumption’ that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant 

community at the relevant time.”). The plain and ordinary meaning of a term is the “meaning that 

the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” 

Philips, 415 F.3d at 1313.

“‘Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim 

language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally 

be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 

1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). 

In particular, “it is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the 

specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the 

intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. 

Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

When construing claim terms, courts may also consult extrinsic evidence, including 

dictionaries. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319. But extrinsic evidence is “‘less significant than the 

intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Id., 415 F.3d at 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 6 of 16
2

1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Extrinsic 

evidence should only be used to help the court come to the proper understanding of the claims; the 

ultimate construction given to the claims should be grounded in the intrinsic evidence. Vitronics 

Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 

525 F.3d 1327, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Old Town Canoe Co. v. Confluence Holdings Corp., 448 

F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according to 

their plain and ordinary meaning are when the patentee (1) acts as his/her own lexicographer or (2) 

disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner 

v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To act as his/her own 

lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and 

“clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. To disavow the full scope of a claim term, the 

patentee's statements in the specification or prosecution history must represent “a clear disavowal 

of claim scope.” Id. at 1366. Accordingly, when “an applicant's statements are amenable to multiple 

reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. 

Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

B. Means-Plus-Function Claiming

A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 36 U.S.C. § 112(f); 

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015).The lack of meansplus-function language creates a presumption that the term is not a means-plus-function term. 

means-plus-function term. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018). In order to overcome this presumption, a party must demonstrate that “the claim term 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 7 of 16
3

fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient 

structure for performing that function.” Id.

C. Indefiniteness

The Patent Act requires claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject 

matter regarded as the inventions. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. To satisfy this requirement, the claim must 

be read in light of the intrinsic evidence to determine whether it informs one of skill in the art at the 

time of the invention “about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. 

Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910-11 (2014). To establish that a claim is indefinite, a 

patent challenger must prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Sonix Tech. Co. v. 

Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

In the context of a claim governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6, the claim is indefinite if the claim 

fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions. Williamson, 

792 F.3d at 1351–52. The disclosure is inadequate when one of ordinary skill in the art “would be

unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding 

function in the claim.” Id. at 1352. Computer-implemented means-plus-function claims are 

indefinite unless the specification discloses an algorithm to perform the function associated with 

the limitation. Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 8 of 16
4

II. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,777,728 (CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00583-ADA)

A. Disputed Term

1. “tap direction” (Claims 1, 11, 16)

WSOU’s Proposed Construction Google’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning tap direction that extends between the first tap

position and a second tap position

The term “tap direction” requires no construction for the following reasons.

First, Google does not attempt to construe the term “tap direction” itself but instead adds

extra limitations that were not selected by the patentee in drafting the claims. Adding limitations 

neither required by claim terms nor unambiguously required by either the specification or the 

prosecution history of a patent is impermissible. See, e.g., Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 

F.3d 788, 796–97 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 648 (2019); Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total 

Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Second, Google’s proposed construction conflicts with the surrounding claim language.

Claim 1, for instance, recites “defining a candidate area that has a configuration that is dependent 

upon a tap direction that extends between the first position and a second position, wherein the 

second position is a position of a previously detected touch of a second key of the touch sensitive 

display.” The italicized claim language in the previous sentence is identical except that Google 

attempts to convert “first position” and “second position” to “first tap position” and “second tap

position,” respectively. Claim 1 recites that the “second position” is “a position of a previously 

detected touch of a second key of the touch sensitive display.” Indeed, Google’s newly-created 

phrases—“first tap position,” “second tap position,” and even “tap position”—are not recited in the 

claims and do not appear in the specification. The Court should give effect to the terms chosen by 

the patentee; and the Court should reject Google’s proposed construction for the “tap direction” 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 9 of 16
5

terms as deviating from the plain and ordinary meaning, conflicting with the intrinsic evidence, and 

erroneously rewriting the claims. See, e.g., K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999) (“Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give effect to the terms chosen by the 

patentee.”); Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

(“[C]ourts can neither broaden nor narrow claims to give the patentee something different than what 

he has set forth.”).

Third, removing the improper word “tap” is removed before “position” in Google’s 

construction, the remainder of Google’s construction would render the remainder of the surrounding 

claim language superfluous. As noted above, claim recites “a tap direction that extends between 

the first position and a second position.” The underlined language in Google’s construction “tap 

direction that extends between the first tap position and a second tap position” would render the 

claim language superfluous. is no need to define “tap direction” with other surrounding claim 

language. Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

(“interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored.”).

III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,817,585 (CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00571-ADA)

Neither party currently contends that any terms of the ‘585 patent require construction. 

IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,803,697 (CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00584-ADA)

Neither party currently contends that any terms of the ‘697 patent require construction. 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 10 of 16
6

V. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,335,825 (CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00578-ADA)

A. Disputed Term

1. “continuous wave doppler radar” (Claims 1 and 19)

WSOU’s Proposed Construction Google’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning a Doppler radar that emits an uninterrupted 

electromagnetic signal

The term “continuous wave doppler radar” requires no construction for the following 

reasons.

First, as an initial matter, Google’s inclusion of the phrase “Doppler radar” it its proposed 

construction is the same language that appears in a portion of the claim itself. The parties thus agree 

that the plain and ordinary meaning of “doppler radar” should govern.

Second, Google effectively proposes that the claim language “continuous wave” be 

construed as something that “emits an uninterrupted electromagnetic signal.” Google’s proposed 

construction conflicts with the intrinsic evidence. Namely, both the specification and claims lack 

any reference to the word “uninterrupted” or “interrupted” (or any form of those words). Rather, 

the specification first introduces the generic concept of a “Doppler radar detector.” ’825 patent at 

4:19. And then the specification describes two types of Doppler radar detectors: continuous wave 

and pulse. Id. at 4:23-24 (“The Doppler radar does not have to be on continuously and may be 

pulsed to save power.”) Therefore, distinction is between “continuous wave” and “pulse,” not the 

concept of “uninterrupted” as Google contends.

Third, while it is not entirely clear what Google intends by “uninterrupted,” if the Court 

were to adopt Google’s construction, it could be misapplied to carve out one particular type of 

“continuous wave” doppler radar that is described in the specification—namely, the “Frequency 

Modulated Continuous Wave” (FMCW) where the “time signature” may have a “period variation 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 11 of 16
7

in frequency.” Id. at 4:33-36 (“The time signature may, for example, be ... a periodic variation in 

frequency (Frequency Modulated Continuous wave).”) The art recognizes FMCW as a subtype of 

continuous wave radars. Wikipedia, Continuous Wave Radar,

https://web.archive.org/web/20120418124039/http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Continuouswave_radar (archived Apr. 18, 2012) (Ex. A) (listing Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave radar 

as a subtype of Continuous Wave Radar); Federation of American Scientists, ES310: Introduction 

to Naval Weapons Engineering Course Syllabus, Lesson 10: Continuous Wave Radar,

https://web.archive.org/web/20091227095356/https://fas.org/man/dod101/navy/docs/es310/cwradar/cwradar.htm (archived Dec. 27, 2009) (Ex. B) (same).listing 

Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave radar as a subtype of Continuous Wave Radar).1

1 To be clear, WSOU does not contend that the cited extrinsic evidence should define or 

otherwise limit the meaning of “continuous wave doppler radar.” Both pieces of extrinsic 

evidence are merely cited as evidence of how Google’s construction fails to encompass the full 

scope of the plain and ordinary meaning.

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 12 of 16
8

2. “at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, 

with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least: 

detect that an application is being started on the apparatus; 

in response to the application being started on the apparatus, turn on a 

continuous wave doppler radar at the apparatus” (Claim 1)

WSOU’s Proposed Construction Google’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. 35 U.S.C. § 112, 

¶6 does not apply.

This term is subject to means-plus-function 

treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

Function: detect that an application is being 

started on the apparatus; in response to the 

application being started on the apparatus, turn 

on a continuous wave doppler radar at the 

apparatus

Structure: none (indefinite).

The term above-listed term requires no construction for the following reasons.

First, lack of means-plus-function language creates a presumption that the term is not a meansplus-function term. Diebold, 899 F.3d at 1298. In order to overcome this presumption, Google will need 

to demonstrate that “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function 

without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. 

Second, Google cannot overcome the presumption because the claim itself recites sufficient 

structure, namely “at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with at least 

one processor, to cause the apparatus.” See LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc., 453 

F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 28 (U.S. 2007) (ruling that term “control 

unit” in a claim limitation reciting “a control unit for controlling the communication unit, wherein 

the control unit comprises a [central processing unit (‘CPU’)] and a partitioned memory system” 

was not a means-plus-function limitation) rev’d on other grounds sub nom. In LG, the Federal 

Circuit held that the presumption was not overcome because the “claim itself provides sufficient 

structure, namely ‘a CPU and a partitioned memory system,’ for performing the stated function, 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 13 of 16
9 

‘controlling the communication unit.’” Here, similar to LG, the claim itself provides sufficient 

structure including memory and a processor. See id. 

Third, the term “program code” connotes specific structure in view of the detailed functional 

tasks recited in the body of the claim that the code had to accomplish. See Virginia Innovation Scis.,

Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 4:18-CV-474, 2019 WL 4259020, at *30-32 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019). In 

Virginia Innovative, the district court found that the presumption was not overcome where the claim 

language recited “a memory configured to store program code that includes instructions executable 

by said processor, said instructions comprising ....[reciting over a half dozen specific functional 

tasks].” Here, just as in Virginia Innovative, the claim language recites structure (e.g., the memory, 

program code, and processor) that then performs a specific set of functional tasks (e.g., the six 

functional tasks recited after “to cause the apparatus to at least”).

Fourth, to the extent the preamble invokes § 112, ¶6 (WSOU contends that it does not), 

Google is improperly identifying the function by combining two separate elements that the 

apparatus performs. This is evident from claim 1 as formatted, the relevant portion of which is 

reproduced below:

’825 patent at 10:29-41. 

The element “detect that an application is being started on the apparatus” is recited separately from

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 14 of 16
10

the next element that starts “in response to the application being started on the apparatus, turn on a 

continuous wave doppler wave radar at the apparatus and transmit radio signals that comprise the 

continuous wave doppler radar ...” Google has not explained why it has arbitrarily combined these 

two elements and also ignores that language “and transmit radio signals that comprise the 

continuous wave doppler radar...” Nor has Google explained why in identifying this element, 

Google has omitted the colon between “the apparatus to at least” and “detect that an application is 

being started....” WSOU has listed the term above as recited in claim 1.

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 15 of 16
11

Dated: January 22, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan Loveless

James L. Etheridge

Texas Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas Bar No. 24065671

Travis L. Richins

Texas Bar No. 24061296

Jeffrey Huang

Brian M. Koide

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, TX 76092

Tel.: (817) 470-7249

Fax: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Jhuang@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brian@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, on January 22, 

2021.

/s/ James L. Etheridge

James L. Etheridge

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 16 of 16