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

ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)

robert.mccauley@finnegan.com

Jacob Schroeder (SBN 264717)

jacob.schroeder@finegan.com

Jeffrey D. Smyth (SBN 280665)

jeffrey.smyth@finnegan.com

Arpita Bhattacharyya (pro hac vice)

arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

3300 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, California 94304

Telephone: (650) 849-6600

Facsimile: (650) 849-6666

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

ASETEK DANMARK A/S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ASIA VITAL COMPONENTS CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendant,

v.

ASETEK DANMARK A/S

Defendant and 

Counterclaimant.

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-07160-JST

DEFENDANT ASETEK DANMARK

A/S’S OPENING CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION BRIEF 

REGARDING U.S. PATENT NOS. 

8,240,362 AND 8,245,764

Hearing Date: November 7, 2017

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom: 9, 19th Floor

Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 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

i ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................................1

A. Technical Background .............................................................................................1

B. The Asetek Patents and the Claimed Invention .......................................................2

C. Relevant Prosecution History of the ’362 and ’764 patents ....................................6

1. The ’362 patent ............................................................................................6

III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .....................................................7

IV. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................8

A. “Reservoir” (the ’362 and ’764 patents)..................................................................8

B. “Substantially Circular Passageway” (’362 patent)...............................................10

C. “Positioned On” (’362 and ’764 patents)...............................................................13

D. “Horizontal Wall” (’362 patent) ............................................................................15

E. “Substantially Circular Passageway Positioned on the Horizontal Wall” (’362 

patent) ....................................................................................................................16

F. “Fluidly Coupled” (’362 and ’764 patents) ...........................................................17

G. “Placed in Separable Thermal Contact” (’362 patent)...........................................19

H. “Separably Thermally Coupling” (’362 patent).....................................................20

I. “The Heat Exchange Interface Being Removably Attached / Coupled To The 

Reservoir” (’362 patent) ........................................................................................20

V. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................23

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 2 of 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

ii ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Anchor Wall Sys. Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc.,

340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir 2003).......................................................................................................11

Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,

No. 1:11-cv-08450, 2012 WL 8123793 (N.D. Ill. 2012)...............................................................11

Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group,

616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................................14

Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp.,

516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................7

Control Resources, Inc. v. Delta Electronics, Inc.,

133 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001)............................................................................................12

Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc.,

264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................................11

In re Glaug,

283 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................21, 22

Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc.,

373 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................19, 21

Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,

488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................................19

Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co.,

790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................21, 22

Level One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Seeq Tech., Inc.,

987 F. Supp. 1191 (N.D. Cal. 1997)..............................................................................................18

Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc.,

641 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................................7

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,

517 U.S. 370 (1996).........................................................................................................................7

MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,

447 Fed. App’x 142 (Fed. Cir. 2011).............................................................................................18

Nystrom v. TREX Co.,

424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................8

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 3 of 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

iii ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,

521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7, 21

Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................7, 8, 10, 14

Playtex Products, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,

400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................11

Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC,

743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................................8

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC,

669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................13, 14, 15

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.

90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................7, 16

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 4 of 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

1 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

I. INTRODUCTION

AVC brought the instant declaratory judgment suit against Asetek seeking judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Asetek’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,240,362 (“the ’362 patent”) and 

8,245,764 (“the ’764 patent”) (collectively “Asetek Patents”). Asetek in turn has counterclaimed that 

the AVC products-at-issue infringe certain claims of the Asetek Patents. Although the parties agree 

on the construction of one claim term (“double-sided chassis”), they dispute the meaning of nine 

terms from the Asetek Patents, which are addressed in this opening brief. 

Asetek’s proposed constructions are true to the scope of the claims and are grounded in the 

intrinsic record of the Asetek Patents. Asetek relies on limited extrinsic evidence (the expert 

declaration of Dr. Donald E. Tilton, “Tilton Decl.”) for the purpose of clarifying technical concepts 

and in a manner that is consistent with the intrinsic evidence. In contrast, AVC’s proposed 

constructions are unsupported by the intrinsic record, overly limiting, and inconsistent with the plain 

language of the claims. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, Asetek 

respectfully submits that the Court should adopt Asetek’s proposed construction for each disputed 

term.

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

A. Technical Background

Computers (and particular their central processing units, or “CPUs”) generate heat during 

operation, which must be dissipated efficiently and effectively in order for computers to operate 

reliably. Tilton Decl., ¶10. As technology advances and computers become faster and more 

powerful, they generate increasing amounts of heat that must be managed. Id. Various heat 

dissipation methods, including air cooling and liquid cooling, are used to manage heat in computer 

systems. Id. at ¶11. While air cooling systems are cheaper and easier to install, they are not as 

efficient as liquid cooling at heat removal. Id. 

Prior art liquid cooling systems were bulky and posed significant risk of leakage from having 

several components (such as a heat exchanger, a liquid reservoir, a pump, and a heat radiator) 

coupled together using tubes. Id. Such a configuration is illustrated in Prior Art Figure 3 of the 

Asetek Patents, showing a prior art heat exchanger 7, a prior art liquid reservoir 8, a prior art pump 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 5 of 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

2 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

9, and a prior art heat radiator 11 connected in a closed loop using tubes. Declaration of Arpita 

Bhattacharyya in Support of Asetek’s Opening Claim Construction Brief Re: U.S. Patent Nos. 

8,240,362 and 8,245,764 (“Bhattacharyya Decl.”), Ex. 1 [the ’362 patent] at col. 1, ll. 13-50. (All 

exhibits are attached to the Bhattacharyya Declaration and referred to as “Ex. __.”)

The liquid cooling technology described and claimed in the Asetek Patents addressed this 

leakage problem, among others, and resulted in a highly efficient yet compact (narrow profile) liquid 

cooling device that has been widely accepted by the industry (and copied by competitors). See Tilton 

Decl., ¶13. 

B. The Asetek Patents and the Claimed Invention

The asserted claims of the ’362 and the ’764 patents are directed to a liquid cooling device 

comprising a specific structure—a dual-chambered reservoir bounded by a cold plate. Tilton Decl., 

¶12. In the ’362 patent, the dual chambers in the recited “reservoir” are termed the “upper chamber” 

and the “lower chamber” (Ex. 1, e.g., claim 14), whereas in the ’764 patent the dual chambers in the 

recited “reservoir” are termed the “pump chamber” and the “thermal exchange chamber.” (Ex. 2 [the 

’764 patent], e.g., claim 1). Id. In both patents, the cold plate (which forms the boundary wall of the 

reservoir and is placed in thermal contact with the heat generating unit) is termed the “heat 

exchanging interface.” Id.

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 6 of 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

3 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

Although the specifications of the ’362 and ’764 patents are very similar, the patents are 

neither directly related,1 nor are they identical. Nevertheless, the parties agree that certain similar 

claim terms (e.g., “reservoir,” “positioned on,” and “fluidly coupled”) in the two patents should be 

construed to have the same meaning. The parties additionally agree that the claim term “doublesided chassis” in claim 1 of the ’764 patent should be construed as: “a two-sided frame or housing, 

each side of which has a purpose.”

Claim 14 of the ’362 patent (Ex. 1) is representative of the asserted claims in that patent

(with the disputed terms emphasized):

14. A cooling system for a processing unit positioned on a

motherboard of a computer, comprising:

a reservoir configured to be coupled to the processing unit

positioned on the motherboard at a first location, the reservoir

being adapted to pass a cooling liquid therethrough, wherein

the reservoir includes an upper chamber and a lower chamber,

the upper chamber and the lower chamber being separate

chambers containing cooling liquid that are separated by at

least a horizontal wall and fluidly coupled together by one or

more passageways, at least one of the one or more

passageways being a substantially circular passageway

positioned on the horizontal wall, the reservoir further

including a heat exchanging interface configured to be placed

in separable thermal contact with the processing unit, the heat

exchanging interface being removably attached to the reservoir

such that the heat exchanging interface forms a boundary wall

of the lower chamber of the reservoir;

a heat radiator configured to be positioned at a second location

horizontally spaced apart from the first location when the

reservoir is coupled to the processing unit;

a fan adapted to direct air to the heat radiator to dissipate heat from

the cooling liquid to surrounding atmosphere;

a pump configured to circulate the cooling liquid between the

reservoir and the heat radiator, the pump including a motor

having a rotor, a stator, and an impeller having curved blades,

the impeller being mechanically coupled to the rotor and at

least partially submerged in the cooling liquid in the reservoir,

 1 The ’362 patent is a Divisional of U.S. Patent No. 7,971,632, which is a national stage entry of

PCT/DK2004/000775 filed November 8, 2004, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Provisional 

Application No. 60/517,924. The ’764 patent is a continuation of abandoned U.S. Application No. 

11/919,974, which was a national stage entry of PCT/DK2005/000310 filed May 6, 2005.

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 7 of 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

4 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

wherein a speed of the impeller is configured to be varied

independent of the speed of the fan.

Similarly, representative claim 1 of the ’764 patent (Ex. 2) is stated below, with the disputed 

terms in bold:

A cooling system for a heat-generating component, comprising:

a double-sided chassis adapted to mount a pump configured to 

circulate a cooling liquid, the pump comprising a stator and an 

impeller, the impeller being positioned on the underside of the chassis 

and the stator being positioned on the upper side of the chassis and 

isolated from the cooling liquid;

a reservoir adapted to pass the cooling liquid therethrough, the 

reservoir including:

a pump chamber including the impeller and formed below the chassis, 

the pump chamber being defined by at least an impeller cover having 

one or more passages for the cooling liquid to pass through;

a thermal exchange chamber formed below the pump chamber and 

vertically spaced apart from the pump chamber, the pump chamber 

and the thermal exchange chamber being separate chambers that are 

fluidly coupled together by the one or more passages; and

a heat exchanging interface, the heating-exchanging interface forming 

a boundary wall of the thermal exchange chamber, and configured to 

be placed in thermal contact with a surface of the heat-generating 

component; and

a heat radiator fluidly coupled to the reservoir and configured to 

dissipate heat from the cooling liquid.

Identical Figure 15 in both the ’362 and ’764 patents and Figures 17 and 20 of the ’764 

patent represent embodiments of the claimed invention. As shown by the figures, rather than 

coupling together multiple separate components (as in the prior art), the claimed invention has, 

among other features, a single receptacle (i.e., reservoir 14) divided into chambers that are vertically 

spaced apart and that are fluidly coupled to allow for heat dissipation via the heat exchanging 

interface (4). Tilton Decl., ¶12. This is illustrated in annotated Figure 15 from both patents and 

annotated Figure 20 of the ’764 patent:

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 8 of 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

5 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 8 of the ’362 patent (and identical Figure 7 of the ’764 

patent), the claimed invention also comprises a radiator (11), tubing (24 and 25) that connects the 

pump unit (including the reservoir) to the radiator, and fan (10) to blow air through the radiator. See 

Ex. 1 at col. 13, ll. 28-41.

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 9 of 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

6 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

C. Relevant Prosecution History of the ’362 and ’764 patents

1. The ’362 patent

The prosecution history of the parent application (Appl. No. 10/578,578) to the ’362 patent is 

relevant to the construction of certain terms of the asserted claims of the ’362 patent, and is also 

relevant to at least the construction of the term “reservoir” as it pertains to the ’764 patent. 

The originally filed specification of the parent application is virtually identical to the ’362 

patent specification. When the applicant amended its claims in the parent application to claim, 

among other things, an “upper chamber” and a “lower chamber,” the Examiner objected to the 

specification as allegedly not providing clear support or proper antecedent basis for the claimed 

subject matter. Ex. 3 (Office Action dated November 24, 2010) at 3. In particular, the Examiner 

objected to the new claim terms “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” and requested amendment 

of the specification. Id. The applicant disagreed with the Examiner’s rejection, and during a 

subsequent interview with the Examiner, “the Examiner agreed with the Applicant that the recited 

upper and lower chambers of the reservoir are illustrated in the originally filed FIG. 15.” Ex. 4 

(Applicant’s record of interview with Examiner dated April 4, 2011) at 11-12 (emphasis added). 

Thus, the Examiner explicitly found support for the claimed dual-chambered reservoir structure in 

Figure 15 of the ’362 patent. Indeed, the Examiner confirmed this in his Notice of Allowance, in 

which he removed his objection and found that “Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remark, filed 

4/4/2011, with respect to the objection of drawing, the 112th [sic] rejection and the art rejection have 

been fully considered and are persuasive.” Ex. 5 (Notice of Allowance dated April 8, 2011) at 2. In 

fact, the Examiner allowed the applicant to amend the specification of the parent application to 

specifically recite an “upper chamber” and a “lower chamber.” Ex. 6 (U.S. Patent No. 7,971,632) at 

col. 18, ll. 3-9. 

Similarly, and as discussed above, identical Figure 15 of the ’764 patent, as well as Figures 

17 and 20 and the associated text, provide support for an embodiment of the dual chambers (“pump 

chamber” and “thermal exchange chamber”) recited in the claims of the ’764 patent. 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 10 of 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

7 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Claim construction is a question of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, 

Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). “The purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning 

and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.’” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation 

Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are 

generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’. . . [which 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, i.e., as of 

the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “The customary meaning of a claim term is not determined in a 

vacuum and should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the intrinsic record, as understood 

within the technological field of the invention.” Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 

F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Although “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular

claim terms,” they “do not stand alone,” but rather “are part of a fully integrated written instrument.” 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at1314–15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A person of ordinary 

skill in the art “is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in 

which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” 

Id. at 1313. Therefore, “the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction 

analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” 

Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Vitronics 

Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc. 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). A court must, nevertheless, “avoid 

the danger of reading limitations from the specification into the claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. 

The prosecution history is akin to the specification in that it “provides evidence of how the 

PTO and the inventor understood the patent,” and “was created by the patentee in attempting to 

explain and obtain the patent.” Id. at 1317. The Federal Circuit often deems the prosecution history 

to be of “critical significance” to ascertaining “the meaning of the claims.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 

1582. 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 11 of 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 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

A court may also consult extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries, treatises and expert 

testimony to “shed useful light on the relevant art.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Definitions in technical dictionaries may shed light on “the way in 

which one of skill in the art might use the claim terms,” provided that they do not “contradict any 

definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” Starhome GmbH v. AT&T 

Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted); see also Nystrom v. 

TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[U]ndue reliance on extrinsic evidence poses the 

risk that it will be used to change the meaning of claims in derogation of the [intrinsic record].”).

IV. ARGUMENT

A. “Reservoir” (the ’362 and ’764 patents)

The parties agree that “reservoir” should be construed the same for the asserted claims of 

both the ’362 and the ’764 patents, and have proposed the following competing constructions:

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“reservoir” single receptacle defining a 

fluid flow path 

a receptacle for holding and 

retaining liquid

The parties agree that the recited “reservoir” would generally mean “receptacle” to a person 

of ordinary skill in the art. See Tilton Decl., ¶16. In the context of the ’362 and ’764 patents, 

however, Asetek proposes that “reservoir” should be construed as “single receptacle defining a fluid 

flow path” to address the additional structural features and characteristics of the “reservoir” 

disclosed and claimed in the patents.

Asetek’s construction of “reservoir” begins with “single receptacle...,” which is consistent 

with the intrinsic evidence. In both Asetek Patents, every reference to the “reservoir” (i.e., reservoir 

14) is to a single receptacle. Indeed, the patents refer to “reservoir 14” interchangeably with 

“reservoir housing 14,” which undoubtedly comprises a single receptacle. See, e.g., Ex. 1 at col. 15, 

ll. 22-26; Ex. 2 at col. 22, ll. 44-53. Moreover, the claimed dual chambers (referred to as the “upper” 

and “lower” chambers in the ’362 patent, and the “pump chamber” and “thermal exchange chamber” 

in the ’764 patent) are contained within the single receptacle (with a “heat exchanging interface” 

forming the lower boundary wall of the lower/thermal exchange chamber). See, e.g., Ex. 1 at Figure 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 12 of 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

9 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

15; Ex. 2 at Figures 15, 17, and 20; see also Section II.C, supra (discussing support for the claimed 

dual chambers in Figure 15). The ’764 patent specification also states, with reference to Figure 20, 

that the “area enclosed between the underside of the reservoir housing 14 and the heat exchange 

surface 4 constitutes an enclosed space for circulating the cooling liquid therethrough [that is] is 

divided into two separate chambers.” Ex. 2 at col. 22, ll. 44-49. Thus, the chambers of Figure 20 

represent separate chambers within the single receptacle, or reservoir.

Asetek acknowledges that AVC’s construction of “reservoir” as “a receptacle” should also 

mean that the “reservoir” must be only one receptacle. In fact, this is similar to what Judge Chen 

explained in his Claim Construction Order in the prior Asetek Holdings Inc., et al. v. CoolIT Systems, 

Inc., and Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc. cases. Ex. 7 (Claim Construction Order) at 8 (Judge 

Chen wrote that inserting “single” before “reservoir” is “unnecessary because the fact that the claim 

term is ‘reservoir’ (singular) and not ‘reservoirs’ (plural) indicates that a reservoir is only one 

receptacle and not many.”). Although Judge Chen’s reasoning was logical, the defendants in the 

prior litigations played on the lack of the word “single” in the Court’s claim construction to present 

invalidity positions in which the alleged “reservoir” was formed by connecting two separate 

receptacles. Bhattacharyya Decl., ¶9. Asetek respectfully submits that its proposed construction of 

“reservoir” as “single receptacle” would provide necessary clarification that the claimed “reservoir” 

is a single receptacle (that comprises dual chambers). See Tilton Decl., ¶17. This would serve 

judicial economy and reduce litigation expenses by foreclosing at the outset invalidity positions that 

run counter to the disclosure of “reservoir” in the ’362 and ’764 patents.

The parties additionally dispute the purpose and function of the claimed “reservoir.” AVC’s 

construction of “reservoir” as “a receptacle for holding and retaining fluid,” could imply that the 

“reservoir” stores fluid in a static state without fluid flow or movement. Id. at ¶18. In fact, this is 

exactly the position that CoolIT asserted in Asetek Holdings Inc., et al. v. CoolIT Systems, Inc. to 

attempt to avoid infringement. Bhattacharyya Decl., ¶9. Although CoolIT’s argument was at odds 

with the specification and claims, which nowhere suggest that the “reservoir” or a portion thereof 

“holds and retains” fluid (Tilton Decl., ¶19), CoolIT premised its argument on Judge Chen’s 

construction of “reservoir,” which included “holding a liquid or fluid.” Id; Ex. 7 (Claim Construction 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 13 of 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

10 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

Order) at 8-9. This is why Asetek respectfully requests a modest but important revision of Judge 

Chen’s prior claim construction of the term “reservoir.”

Indeed, nothing in the intrinsic record of the ’362 and the ’764 patents supports AVC’s 

“holding and retaining fluid” construction for “reservoir.” The Asetek patent claims and the 

description of the exemplary embodiments (e.g., Fig. 15 of the ’362 patent, and Figs. 15, 17, and 20 

of the ’764 patent) make it clear that during the operation of the claimed cooling system, the cooling 

fluid continuously flows through the fluid chambers and the passageways within the “reservoir.” Id.

Figure 7 of both Asetek Patents further demonstrates that the claimed cooling system is a closedloop system where liquid is pumped continuously between radiator 11 and the pump unit2

comprising reservoir 14. Tilton Decl., ¶19. Thus, reservoir 14 of both Asetek Patents defines a fluid 

flow path through its dual chambers and passageways, as stated in Asetek’s proposed construction. 

Id. 

Furthermore, claim 14 of the ’362 patent and claim 1 of the ’764 patent both require that the 

“reservoir” be “adapted to pass a cooling liquid therethrough.” Ex. 1, claim 14; Ex. 2, claim 1. And 

both claims further require that the upper/pump chamber and lower/thermal exchange chamber be 

“fluidly coupled” together. Id. Thus, the claim language itself requires that the “reservoir” include 

chambers through which the cooling liquid flows. Thus, AVC’s construction, which requires the 

“reservoir” to hold static fluid, i.e., without flow, contradicts the plain language of the claims. Such a 

construction can never be the correct one. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. Asetek’s construction of 

“reservoir” as “single receptacle defining a fluid flow path” best captures the meaning of the term 

based on the disclosures of the Asetek Patents. The Court should therefore adopt Asetek’s 

construction, and reject the unclear and erroneous construction asserted by AVC.

B. “Substantially Circular Passageway” (’362 patent)

The parties have proposed the following constructions for the term “substantially circular 

passageway” in claim 14 of the ’362 patent:

 

2 Asetek’s claimed invention has, among other features, a pump unit that combines a pump, a 

reservoir, and a heat exchanger (i.e., a cold plate) into a single component.

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 14 of 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

11 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“substantially circular 

passageway”

a generally circular opening passage with a circular exterior 

along at least one edge,

or

passage with at least one 

circular edge.

Claim 14 of the ’362 patent recites, inter alia, “at least one of the one or more passageways 

[fluidly coupling the upper and lower chambers] being a substantially circular passageway 

positioned on the horizontal wall.” Ex. 1, claim 14. Asetek proposes that the term “substantially 

circular passageway” be defined as “generally circular opening,” consistent with the plain and 

ordinary meaning of “substantially” and the disclosure of the ’362 patent showing that the 

“passageway” between the “upper” and “lower” chambers is an opening on a surface of the 

“horizontal wall” separating the chambers.

The Federal Circuit has explained that “substantial” is “a meaningful modifier implying 

‘approximate,’ rather than ‘perfect.’” Playtex Products, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 

907 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (construing the term “substantially flattened surface”). The Federal Circuit has 

further stated that “words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’ are descriptive 

terms ‘commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified 

parameter.’” Anchor Wall Sys. Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1310-11 (Fed. 

Cir 2003) (citing Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal 

quotes omitted)). Thus, defining “substantially circular” as “generally circular” clarifies that the 

“passageway” between the dual chambers must be approximately or generally, but not perfectly, 

circular. In fact, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand “substantially circular 

passageway” to mean a passage or an opening that is generally circular. Tilton Decl., ¶20. This is 

because passages or openings having generally circular cross-sections (e.g., tubing) are routinely 

used for fluid transfer to minimize fluid flow resistance and reduce fluid pressure drops. Id. 

AVC’s proposed constructions of “substantially circular,” on the other hand, violate the 

common-sense principle that a claim construction should not be harder to understand than the claim 

term itself. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08450, 2012 WL 8123793, *1 (N.D. 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 15 of 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

12 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

Ill. 2012) (Posner, J., sitting by designation) (expressing the concern “that many of the proposed 

claims constructions are not in language intelligible to jurors” and observing “[t]here is no point in 

giving jurors stuff they won’t understand”); Control Resources, Inc. v. Delta Electronics, Inc., 133 

F. Supp. 2d 121, 127 (D. Mass. 2001) (“In the end, claim construction must result in a phraseology 

that can be taught to a jury of lay people... . Thus, accurate words that convey the essence of the 

invention are needed.”). When an expert such as Dr. Tilton, whose qualifications and technical 

experience far exceed the level of ordinary skill in the art, is confused by the terms “circular 

exterior” of the passage, or the “at least one edge”/“at least one circular edge” of the passage in 

AVC’s constructions, then it is highly likely that such constructions will be confusing and unhelpful 

to a jury of lay persons. See Tilton Decl., ¶21. In contrast, Asetek’s proposed construction of 

“substantially circular” as “generally circular” can be readily understood and applied by the jury. 

The parties also disagree about the meaning of the term “passageway.” The ’362 patent

clearly shows that the “passageway” is an opening on a surface of the “horizontal wall” separating 

the dual chambers, and not a “long, narrow hole or tube” as suggested by AVC’s cherry-picked 

dictionary definition. See Dkt. No. 78 (Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement) at 6. For 

example, Figure 15 of the ’362 patent depicts an opening (inlet 15) connecting the dual chambers of 

reservoir 14. Tilton Decl., ¶20. Figure 15 also depicts that the opening (inlet 15) is generally circular, 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 16 of 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

13 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

which further supports Asetek’s proposed construction.

Accordingly, Asetek’s construction better captures the meaning of the claim term 

“substantially circular passageway” in light of the disclosure of the ’362 patent and the knowledge of 

one of ordinary skill in the art.

C. “Positioned On” (’362 and ’764 patents)

The term “positioned on” appears in claims 14 and 17 of the ’362 patent, and claim 1 of the 

’764 patent. The parties agree that the term should be construed the same for both patents, and 

propose the following claim constructions for this term: 

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“positioned on” Plain and ordinary meaning. 

No construction needed.

above and physically

contacted with

Asetek proposes that the term “positioned on” be given its full scope consistent with the plain 

and ordinary meaning of the term because nothing in the patent or its prosecution history indicates 

that “positioned on” should be interpreted in any way other than its plain and ordinary meaning. 

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365-68 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

(“The patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and 

ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope.”). 

AVC, on the other hand, contends that “positioned on” be construed narrowly to require an element 

to be “above” and “physically contacted” with another element of the claimed liquid cooling system. 

AVC’s construction is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “positioned on” and is 

further contradicted by the plain language of the claims. 

Specifically, claim 1 of the ’764 patent recites that “the impeller [is] positioned on the 

underside of the chassis and the stator [is] positioned on the upper side of the chassis.” (Emphasis 

added.) Thus, at least claim 1 of the ’764 patent contemplates a broad interpretation of the term 

“positioned on,” which cannot be satisfied by AVC’s proposed construction, which would require 

both the “impeller” and the “stator” to be located “above,” i.e., on the upper side, of the “doublesided chassis.” AVC’s construction would thus render claim 1 of the ’764 patent nonsensical and 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 17 of 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

14 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

cannot be correct. Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, 616 F.3d 1249, 1255 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010). 

AVC’s proposed construction is further inconsistent with the plain language of claims 14 and 

17 of the ’362 patent. As discussed above with respect to the claim term “substantially circular 

passageway,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the “passageway” 

that “fluidly couple[s]” the dual chambers of the “reservoir” is an opening on a surface of the 

“horizontal wall” separating the two chambers. Tilton Decl., ¶20; see also Figure 15 (showing that 

inlet 15, which connects the “upper” and “lower” chambers, is on a surface of the “horizontal wall”). 

Nothing in the plain language of claims 14 and 17 of the ’362 patent requires the “passageway” to be 

“above” the “horizontal wall.” 

Similarly, nothing in the claims, the specifications, or the prosecution histories support 

limiting “positioned on” to a narrow construction that strictly requires “physical contact.” As the 

plain language of claim 1 of the ’764 patent suggests, “positioned on” simply requires situating the 

“impeller”/“stator” in relation to the “double-side chassis.” In particular, nothing in the claim 

language requires a direct connection between the “double-sided chassis” and the 

“impeller”/“stator,” which is implied by AVC’s proposed construction requiring “physical contact.” 

Moreover, the intrinsic evidence relied on by AVC—Figure 12 and its related text (col. 16, ll. 

4-11 of the ’362 patent)—merely describe a specific embodiment of a heat sink. Nothing about 

Figure 12 and its related text informs the meaning of “positioned on,” nor does it support AVC’s 

narrow construction. The prosecution histories of the Asetek Patents also do not support limiting the 

claims to the construction proposed by AVC.

Absent a special definition of “positioned on” or a disavowal of the full scope of the term in 

the intrinsic record—none of which exists here—the term “positioned on” should be given its plain 

and ordinary meaning. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (stating that “the words of a claim ‘are 

generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’”) (citation omitted); see also Thorner, 669 

F.3d at 1365-68. Asetek, moreover, respectfully submits that the term “positioned on” is not a 

technical term in the field of computer liquid cooling; the term has a common usage in the English 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 18 of 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

15 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

language, which the jury will readily understand in the context of the surrounding claim language. 

No interpretation of “positioned on” is required. 

D. “Horizontal Wall” (’362 patent)

The parties have proposed the following constructions for the term “horizontal wall” in 

claims 14 and 17 of the ’362 patent:

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“horizontal wall” Plain and ordinary meaning, or 

in the alternative, a wall that is 

approximately parallel to the 

heat exchanging interface.

planar surface

The asserted claims of the ’362 patent requires the “upper” and “lower” chambers of the 

“reservoir” to be separated by a “horizontal wall.” Asetek proposes that the term be given the full 

scope of its plain and ordinary meaning, because nothing in the patent or its prosecution history 

indicates that “horizontal wall” should be interpreted in any way other than its plain and ordinary 

meaning. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-68. In the event the Court finds that the term will benefit 

from further clarification, Asetek proposes that the term be construed as “a wall that is 

approximately parallel to the heat exchanging interface.” 

Claim 14 of the ’362 patent requires the “upper” and “lower” chambers to be vertically 

arranged with respect to each other and the “heat exchanging interface,” which forms the lower 

boundary wall of the “lower” chamber. Tilton Decl., ¶22. As a person of ordinary skill in the art 

would readily understand, the “horizontal wall” separating the “upper” and “lower” chambers must 

be at least approximately parallel to the “heat exchanging interface” in order to satisfy the claim 

requirement that the dual chambers be vertically arranged. Id. This interpretation is supported by the 

disclosure of the ’362 patent. For example, Figure 15 (annotated on page 12, supra) shows that the 

“horizontal wall” is parallel to the “heat exchanging interface.” 

AVC’s proposed construction, on the other hand, is contradicted by Figure 15. To a person of 

ordinary skill in the art, “planar” means a flat, two-dimensional surface. Tilton Decl., ¶23. Figure 15 

of the ’362 patent, however, shows channels 26 formed on the “horizontal wall” separating the 

“upper” and “lower” chambers, thus demonstrating that the “horizontal wall” is not limited to a 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 19 of 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

16 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

planar surface. Id. While it is correct that a claim construction need not encompass every disclosed 

embodiment, here Figure 15 represents a preferred embodiment of the ’362 patent, and a claim 

interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment “is rarely, if ever, correct.” See Vitronics, 90 

F.3d at 1583. If AVC’s proposed construction is adopted by the Court, the preferred embodiment 

depicted in Figure 15 will be outside the scope of the claimed invention. In contrast, Asetek’s 

proposed construction is consistent with this preferred embodiment.

Asetek’s proposed construction also specifies a directional frame of reference (i.e., the “wall” 

is horizontal to the “heat exchanging interface”), which further clarifies the meaning of the claim 

term. Tilton Decl., ¶22. Thus, if the Court finds that the term will benefit from further construction, 

it should adopt Asetek’s construction, and reject AVC’s impermissibly narrow and erroneous 

interpretation. 

E. “Substantially Circular Passageway Positioned on the Horizontal Wall” 

(’362 patent)

This term appears in claim 14 of the ’362 patent. While AVC simply refers to its proposed 

constructions for the terms “substantially circular passageway” and “horizontal wall,” Asetek 

proposes a more straightforward, consolidated construction, as shown below:

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“substantially circular 

passageway positioned on the 

horizontal wall”

a generally circular opening on 

a surface of the horizontal wall

See “substantially circular 

passageway” and “horizontal 

wall,” above.

As discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that 

“substantially circular passageway” in the ’362 patent claims means an opening that is generally 

circular. Tilton Decl., ¶20; supra, pp. 11-12. Figure 15, which is a preferred embodiment of the ’362 

patent, further shows that inlet opening 15 (i.e., the “substantially circular passageway”) is 

positioned on a surface of the “horizontal wall” separating the two chambers (annotated on page 12, 

supra). Simply put, Asetek’s proposed construction provides a positional relationship between the 

“substantially circular passageway” and the “horizontal wall,” which is largely ignored by AVC’s 

proposed constructions of these terms. Accordingly, the Court should adopt Asetek’s proposed 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 20 of 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

17 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

construction (“a generally circular opening on a surface of the horizontal wall”) and reject AVC’s 

disjointed constructions of two separate claim terms. 

F. “Fluidly Coupled” (’362 and ’764 patents)

The term “fluidly coupled” appears with different prepositions in claims 14 and 17 of the 

’362 patent, and claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 15, 27, 18, and 30 of the ’764 patent. The parties agree that 

“fluidly coupled” should have the same construction for both patents. Asetek additionally requests 

that the different prepositions surrounding “fluidly coupled” in the patent claims be accommodated 

by construing “fluidly coupled together” (in claims 14 and 17 of the ’362 patent) as “in fluid 

communication;” “fluidly coupled to” (in claims 1, 9, 13, 15 of the ’764 patent) as “in fluid 

communication with;” and “fluidly couple” (in claim 6 of the ’764 patent) as “is in fluid 

communication with.” Asetek’s construction is the same across these various claim terms: “in fluid 

communication.”

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“fluidly coupled” in fluid communication fluidly connected/

connect

The term “fluidly coupled” is used in the ’362 and ’764 patent claims to denote fluid 

communication between the dual chambers of the “reservoir” (claims 14 and 17 of the ’362 patent; 

claims 1, 6, 15, 27, 28, and 30 of the ’764 patent) and between the “reservoir” and the heat radiator 

(claims 9 and 13 of the ’764 patent). As shown in Figure 8 of the ’362 patent (and identical Figure 7 

of the ’764 patent), and as discussed above, the claimed cooling system is a closed-loop system 

wherein the cooling fluid flows continuously through the reservoir and between the reservoir and the 

heat radiator during operation. Tilton Decl., ¶26. This continuous flow of cooling liquid between two 

features or parts of the cooling system is best captured by Asetek’s proposed construction: “in fluid 

communication.” This is also consistent with how fluid flow between the dual chambers is recited in 

independent claim 10 of the ’764 patent, which recites that the “pump chamber” is “coupled with the 

thermal exchange chamber through one or more passages configured for fluid communication 

between the [two chambers]....” Ex. 2, claim 10 (emphasis added). 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 21 of 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

18 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

AVC’s proposed construction, on the other hand, is overly limiting and inconsistent with 

claim constructions of “coupled” by various courts (discussed below). This is because construing the 

term “fluidly coupled” as “fluidly connected” might imply a direct connection between two parts or 

features of the cooling system. Tilton Decl., ¶27. Such direct connection is, however, contradicted by 

the disclosures of the Asetek Patents, because fluid flow between two features or parts of the 

claimed cooling system can be either direct or indirect (i.e., fluid flow between two features or parts 

can be via one or more intermediate elements). Id. For example, Figure 8 of the ’362 patent (and 

identical Figure 7 of the ’764 patent) show indirect fluid flow between the reservoir and the radiator 

via tubes 24 and 25. Id. Similarly, Figure 20 (annotated in page 5, supra) shows that fluid flow 

between pump chamber 46 and thermal exchange chamber 47A is indirect via passage 48 (which 

passes through intermediate member 47). Ex. 2, col. 22, ll. 33-39. On the other hand, the “upper” 

and “lower” chambers of reservoir 14 (depicted in Figure 15 of both patents) are connected directly

via inlet opening 15. Tilton Decl., ¶27. Thus, the disclosure and claims of the ’362 and the ’764 

patents contemplate both direct and indirect fluid flow between different features or parts of the 

cooling system, which is captured best by Asetek’s proposed construction.

Moreover, multiple courts have construed “coupled” to include both direct and indirect 

connection, consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning. E.g., MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 447 Fed. App’x 142, 151-53 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (rejecting defendant’s argument that 

“coupled” required direct connection; construing “coupled” according to its plain and ordinary 

meaning, which includes direct or indirect connection.). Indeed, in the Northern District of 

California, “couple” has been construed to mean “direct or indirect” linking or joining, consistent

with its plain and ordinary meaning. Level One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Seeq Tech., Inc., 987 F. Supp. 

1191, 1196, n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1997). AVC’s proposed construction requiring direct connection is 

inconsistent with these earlier court decisions.3

 

3 In the prior litigations involving the ’362 and ’764 patents, Judge Chen concluded that “coupling” 

in isolation supports both direct and indirect connection. Ex. 7 at 10. That said, he found that claim 1 

of the ’362 patent is more limited because he found it specifies a direct means of connection between 

the dual chambers via a plurality of passageways (and thereby foreclosed indirect connection 

between the chambers via the inlet and outlet tubes and the radiator). Id. at 10-12. No such concern 

(continued...)

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 22 of 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

19 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

In contrast, Asetek’s proposed construction (“in fluid communication”) implies both direct 

and indirect connection, which is consistent with the patent disclosures and earlier court decisions. 

This Court should adopt Asetek’s proposed construction for the same reasons.

G. “Placed in Separable Thermal Contact” (’362 patent)

This term appears in claim 14 of the ’362 patent. The parties propose the following 

constructions for these terms:

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“placed in separable thermal 

contact”

placed detachably and in 

thermal contact

Plain and ordinary meaning. 

No construction needed.

The term “separable thermal contact” does not have an ordinary meaning, and thus it should 

be interpreted in the context of the ’362 patent’s disclosure. See Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc., 373 

F.3d 1158, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Where a claim term has no ordinary and customary meaning, a 

court must resort to the remaining intrinsic evidence—the written description and the prosecution 

history—to obtain the meaning of that term.”); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics 

Sys. Corp., 488 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Without a customary meaning of a term within the 

art, the specification usually supplies the best context for deciphering claim meaning.”). 

The disclosure of the ’362 patent supports Asetek’s construction. First, the ’362 patent’s 

disclosure makes it clear that the pump unit (including reservoir 14) is mounted on the motherboard 

via fastening means, such as, frames, braces, screws, bolts, rivets, etc. See, e.g., Ex. 1, col. 8, ll. 23-

37; col. 9, ll. 42-47, ll. 56-57; col. 17, ll. 47-58; Figures 4 and 5. Since these fastening means can be 

removed if and when needed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the 

pump unit is mounted detactably on the motherboard. Second, the ’362 patent also discloses that the 

pump unit is mounted in such a way that the “heat exchanging interface” (referred to as heat 

exchanger 4 in the patent) is placed in close thermal contact with the CPU in order to facilitate 

 (...continued)

exists here because Asetek has not asserted claim 1 of the ’362 patent. Moreover, Asetek’s 

infringement positions in this case do not rely on any such indirect connection between the dual 

chambers via the radiator. Bhattacharyya Decl., ¶10. 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 23 of 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

20 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

dissipation of heat from the CPU to the cooling liquid in the reservoir. See, e.g., Ex. 1, col. 2, ll. 5-8; 

col. 9, ll. 42-47, ll. 56-57; see also Tilton Decl., ¶12. The term “placed in separable thermal contact” 

represents these two distinct features of the claimed invention: first, the pump unit is mounted in 

such a manner that it can be detached from the motherboard if and when required; and second, the 

pump unit is mounted in close thermal contact with the CPU to facilitate heat transfer. Asetek’s 

proposed construction incorporates and clarifies these distinct features within the claim term 

“separable thermal contact.” 

AVC has not proposed a construction for this term or described what it alleges is the plain

meaning. Asetek respectfully submits that adopting Asetek’s proposed construction will provide 

clarity to the jury in understanding the dual meaning of this claim term. The Court should adopt 

Asetek’s construction for at least this reason.

H. “Separably Thermally Coupling” (’362 patent)

This term appears in claim 17 of the ’362 patent. The parties propose the following 

constructions for these terms:

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“separably thermally 

coupling”

placed detachably and in 

thermal contact

Plain and ordinary meaning. 

No construction needed.

As discussed above with respect to the term “separable thermal contact” in claim 14, the term 

“separably thermally coupling” in claim 17 similarly represents two distinct features of the claimed 

invention: first, the pump unit is mounted detachably on the motherboard; and second, the pump unit 

is mounted in close thermal contact with the CPU to facilitate heat transfer. Both these features are 

fully supported by the disclosure of the ’362 patent. See Ex. 1 at col. 2, ll. 5-8; col. 8, ll. 23-37; col. 

9, ll. 42-47, ll. 56-57; col. 17, ll. 47-58. Asetek’s proposed construction will assist the jury in 

understanding these two distinct features incorporated within a single claim term. 

I. “The Heat Exchange Interface Being Removably Attached / Coupled To 

The Reservoir” (’362 patent)

Claim 14 of the ’362 patent recites that “the heat exchange interface [is] removably attached

to the reservoir,” and claim 17 of the ’362 patent recites that “the heat exchange interface [is] 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 24 of 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

21 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

removably coupled to the reservoir.” (Emphasis added.) The parties agree that both these terms 

should be construed the same, and have proposed the following claim constructions:

Claim Term Asetek AVC

“the heat exchange interface 

being removably attached/ 

coupled to the reservoir”

the heat exchanging interface 

and the rest of the reservoir 

having a non-unitary 

construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. 

No construction needed.

Although AVC does not agree with Asetek’s construction, it has not proposed a competing 

construction. Instead, AVC insists that the term be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The term 

“the heat exchange interface being removably attached/coupled to the reservoir,” however, does not 

have an ordinary meaning, and thus should be interpreted in the context of the ’362 patent’s 

disclosure. See Goldenberg, 373 F.3d at 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1360 

(finding that when the parties dispute a claim term, the Court should resolve it). 

This claim term, and non-infringement positions associated with this term, were heavily 

litigated and even appealed to the Federal Circuit in Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc. There, 

defendant CMI USA took the position that this claim term means that the “heat exchange interface” 

(i.e., the cold plate) must be removable by a user using readily available tools, and further that the 

device must remain operational after removal of the cold plate. Tilton Decl., ¶25. Asetek, on the 

other hand, maintains that the removable cold plate limitation simply means that the reservoir and 

the cold plate are not a unitary, one-piece structure. Id. Thus, this claim term has already been 

subject to two different interpretations. Resolving the conflicting interpretations in view of the 

intrinsic record would be helpful to the jury. See Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., 

790 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding that because the term “sealed” may have more than 

one plain and ordinary meaning, the appropriate definition needed to be ascertained from the 

intrinsic evidence); In re Glaug, 283 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding the word 

“intermittently” was susceptible to various meanings and would be limited by the inventor’s 

lexicography).

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 25 of 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

22 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

Here, Asetek’s proposed construction of “the heat exchange interface being removably 

attached/coupled to the reservoir” is supported by the disclosure of the ’362 patent and how one of 

ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefits of the patented invention from reviewing the 

patent. The ’362 patent states that one object of the invention is to provide a liquid cooling solution 

that can be produced at low cost. See, e.g., Ex. 1 at col. 1, ll. 53-56. The ’362 patent further 

discloses that the removable cold plate allows the reservoir to be made of plastic, while the cold 

plate itself can be made of a heat conductive metal, such as copper or aluminum (which are much 

more expensive than plastic). See, e.g., Ex. 1 at col. 4, ll. 52-66; col. 5, ll. 35-43; Tilton Decl., ¶24. 

This reduces production costs. Tilton Decl., ¶ 24. One of ordinary skill in the art would further 

understand that a removable cold plate also provides manufacturing benefits and flexibility, allowing 

for factory-floor swap outs of cold plates tailored to different CPUs’ (or GPU’s) characteristics. Id.

In contrast, if the cold plate is irremovably attached/coupled to the reservoir, i.e., the 

reservoir and cold plate are a one-piece structure, then the entire component (reservoir and cold 

plate) would have to be constructed of heat-conductive metal, which would increase manufacturing 

costs and reduce manufacturing flexibility. Id. Moreover, if the cold plate is irremovably 

attached/coupled to the reservoir, then the entire reservoir component (and not just the cold plate) 

would have to be replaced whenever there is any change in the configuration of the corresponding 

processing unit, thus increasing manufacturing and/or refurbishing costs of the cooling device. Id. It 

would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the removable cold plate limitation is directed 

to these manufacturing benefits of reduced costs and increased flexibility, and that it is not intended 

to be a benefit for the user (as previously argued by CMI USA). Id. In fact, nothing in the ’362 

patent supports the interpretation espoused by CMI USA.

One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the above-identified 

manufacturing benefits of a removable cold plate can only be achieved if the cold plate and the 

remaining reservoir body are essentially a non-unitary construction, i.e., not a one-piece structure. 

Tilton Decl., ¶25. This is precisely the construction proposed by Asetek. Because claim terms must 

be understood in the context of the patent disclosure (see Kaneka, 790 F.3d at 1305; In re Glaug, 

283 F.3d at 1340), the Court should adopt Asetek’s proposed construction for this term. 

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 26 of 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

23 ASETEK’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07160-JST

V. CONCLUSION

The Court should adopt Asetek’s proposed constructions for each of the disputed terms of the 

Asetek Patent. 

Dated: September 29, 2017 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

By: /s/Arpita Bhattacharyya

Arpita Bhattacharyya

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

ASETEK DANMARK A/S

Case 4:16-cv-07160-JST Document 86 Filed 09/29/17 Page 27 of 27