UBER’S REBUTTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

dc-894392 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490)

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

and OTTOMOTTO LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

DEFENDANTS UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC’S REBUTTAL 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

UBER’S REBUTTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA i

dc-894392

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 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................................... 2 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 

A. Building a Step-Up Circuit with Basic Circuit Components Is Well Known ......... 3 

B. The ’936 Patent Discloses a Step-Up Circuit .......................................................... 6 

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8 

A. The Court Should Construe “Diode” and “Charging Path” Because the 

Parties Dispute Their Meaning................................................................................ 8 

B. “diode” .................................................................................................................. 10 

1. The ’936 Patent describes the claimed “diode” as allowing the flow 

of current in one direction only. ................................................................ 10 

2. Waymo’s insistence on including leakage current in the 

construction of “diode” is unnecessary and confusing ............................. 12 

C. “charging path” ..................................................................................................... 13 

1. The intrinsic record demonstrates that the “charging path” is part of 

a step-up circuit. ........................................................................................ 14 

2. Waymo’s reliance on claim differentiation fails because Uber’s 

construction does not render the dependent claims superfluous. .............. 16 

D. “wherein the capacitor is charged immediately following emission of a 

pulse of light from the light emitting element” ..................................................... 18 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 2 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA ii

dc-894392

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 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

 Page(s) 

Cases

Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys., 

No. 11-CV-02243-JST, 2014 WL 709865 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2014) ......................................16

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc, 

No. 15-CV-05008-PSG, 2016 WL 3124614 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2016) ....................................19

EPL Holdings, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 

No. 12-CV-04306-JST, 2014 WL 491270 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) ........................................16

Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 

563 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................3, 8

Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 

755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................18

Interval Licensing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 

766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................3, 18

Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co., 

203 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................17

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

358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................17, 18

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 

52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ..........................................2

MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 

672 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................2

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

134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ..........................................................................................................3, 18

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

521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .........................................................................................2, 8, 18

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...............................................................................2, 3

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 

158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................2 

SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Eng’g, Inc., 

465 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................16

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 3 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA iii

dc-894392 

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 

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 

669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................9

Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York. v. Symantec Corp., 

811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 4 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 1

dc-894392

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 

INTRODUCTION

Waymo does not argue that Uber literally infringes any claim of the ’936 Patent. Instead, 

Waymo’s infringement case rests on a single fragile principle—that a diode and a resistor are 

equivalent circuit elements. To head off any attempt by Waymo to confuse the jury with this 

erroneous purported equivalency, Uber proposes constructions of “diode” and “charging path” in 

accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the intrinsic record. Waymo’s 

responses to Uber’s constructions demonstrate that Waymo plans to press its beleaguered doctrine 

of equivalents argument by sleight of hand. 

Uber’s construction of “diode” explains the operation of this well-known circuit element 

in a straightforward way: A diode allows current to flow in one direction and prevents current 

from flowing in the reverse direction. Waymo disagrees and insists that any construction of 

“diode” reflect the concept of leakage current, which is not discussed anywhere in the intrinsic 

record and has no relevance to the embodiments disclosed in the specification of the ’936 Patent. 

Waymo further distorts the significance of leakage current in its briefing to maintain its doctrine 

of equivalents argument—by analogizing a diode’s tiny leakage current to current flowing 

through a resistor. But Uber’s expert, Dr. Hobbs, explains that any leakage current in the ’936 

Patent would be about a million times smaller than forward current passing through the diode. 

Even Waymo’s expert characterized leakage current being “about close to zero as anybody would 

care about.” (Declaration of Michelle Yang (“Yang Decl.”) Ex. 1 (“Wolfe Dep. Tr.”) at 59:15-

60:17.) Therefore, leakage current would not assist the jury in understanding how a diode works 

in the claimed circuit, and has no place in the construction of “diode.” 

Uber’s construction of “charging path” clarifies that the “capacitor” in the claimed circuit 

is charged to a value higher than the voltage source. Uber provides unrebutted expert testimony 

to support its construction. Although Waymo disagrees with Uber’s construction, Waymo’s

expert did not provide any testimony on this term because “[c]ounsel never asked me to.” (Wolfe 

Dep. Tr. at 85:21-86:4.) Waymo instead relies on claim differentiation to argue that the

“charging path” does not charge the capacitor to a value higher than the voltage source. But 

Waymo’s identification of dependent claims, through the strategic use of ellipses, omits many 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 5 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 2

dc-894392 

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 

other limitations from those dependent claims that are not in Uber’s construction, which nullifies

Waymo’s claim differentiation argument.

Finally, the term “wherein the capacitor is charged immediately following emission of a 

pulse of light from the light emitting element” is indefinite because a person of skill could not 

determine the scope of “immediately” with any particularity. Waymo argues that “wherein the 

capacitor is charged immediately” refers to when the capacitor begins to charge, even though the 

claims and specification use the term “immediately” to describe the amount of time it takes for 

the capacitor to fully charge. In any event, there is no way for a person of skill to determine the 

amount of time it takes for a capacitor to charge “immediately” with any degree of certainty.

LEGAL STANDARD

The construction of terms found in patent claims is a question of law to be determined by 

the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), 

aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “[T]he interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and 

confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to 

envelop with the claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)

(quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); 

see also MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (when 

construing claims, courts must consider “what was invented, and what exactly was claimed.”). 

The “correct construction,” therefore, is one that “stays true to the claim language and most 

naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1250. 

While the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13, the court must construe a term when the “meaning of a claim term 

as understood by persons of skill in the art is not readily apparent” or “[w]hen the parties present 

a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond 

Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Importantly, “[a] 

determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ 

may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a 

term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1361. The court must 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 6 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 3

dc-894392 

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 

“ensure that questions of the scope of the patent claims are not left to the jury.” Every Penny 

Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

“The claims, of course, do not stand alone” and instead “must be read in view of the 

specification,” which is “[u]sually . . . dispositive” and “the single best guide to the meaning of a 

disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotations omitted). The “claims, when read 

in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for 

those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 

1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The definiteness standard requires “clear notice of what is claimed, 

thereby appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, 

Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014) (internal quotations omitted). A patent is invalid for 

indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent specification and file history, fail to inform 

with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Id. The 

definiteness standard must avoid an innovation-discouraging “‘zone of uncertainty.’” Id. (internal 

quotations omitted).

BACKGROUND

A. Building a Step-Up Circuit with Basic Circuit Components Is Well Known

U.S. Patent No. 9,368,936 (the “’936 Patent”) discloses a step-up circuit for firing a laser 

diode, using well-known circuit elements like inductors, diodes, and capacitors. Below is a brief 

overview of the circuit elements.

An inductor stores and releases energy from a magnetic field of the inductor’s coil. As 

current through the inductor increases, the inductor converts some of the current to energy and 

stores it in the magnetic field. (Expert Report of Dr. Philip Hobbs on Claim Construction 

(“Hobbs Rep.”) ¶¶ 24-25.) As current through the inductor decreases, the inductor converts any 

energy stored in the magnetic field of the coil back to current that flows out of the inductor. (Id.) 

The common circuit symbol for an inductor is:1

 1 This symbol is also sometimes used to denote a ferrite bead (FB), a related but distinct 

electronic component used to suppress high-frequency noise in electronic circuits. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 7 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 4

dc-894392 

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 role of a diode within a circuit is to allow current to flow in one direction and prevent 

current from flowing in the opposite direction. (Id. ¶ 26.) The symbol for a semiconductor diode 

is:

A diode is a two-terminal device that typically includes an anode and a cathode. (Id. 

¶ 29.) When a voltage is applied to the diode, the diode either can allow current to flow through 

it (indicated by the direction of the triangle in the above symbol), or can block any current from 

flowing through it (indicated by the vertical line of the symbol), depending on the polarity of the 

voltage. (Id. ¶¶ 28-31.) When the diode is forward biased (i.e., the voltage on the anode is 

greater than the voltage on the cathode), the diode will act as a conductor and current can flow 

through it. When the diode is reverse biased (i.e., the voltage on the anode is less than the voltage 

on the cathode), the diode will block the flow of current through it. (Id.) 

Ideally, the diode will only allow current to flow when the diode is forward biased and 

prevent any current flow when the diode is reverse biased. (Id. ¶ 32.) In reality, a small and 

negligible current can flow through the diode even when the diode is reverse biased. (Id.) This is 

referred to as leakage current. (Id.) Generally, the magnitude of the current that flows through 

the diode when it is forward biased is on the order of a million to a billion times greater than the 

magnitude of the leakage current. (Id.) Because it is so miniscule, especially when compared to 

the flow of current when the diode is forward biased, the leakage current of a diode does not play 

a role in the operation of a circuit. Persons of skill generally do not consider leakage current 

when using a diode in a circuit. (Id.) 

The role of a capacitor in a circuit is to store charge. (Id ¶ 33.) The symbol for a 

capacitor is: 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 8 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 5

dc-894392 

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 

A capacitor typically includes two metal plates separated by a dielectric material. (Id

¶ 34.) Current flows into one of the metal plates and creates an electric field. (Id.) Positive 

charge will collect on one plate, while a negative charge will collect on the other plate. (Id.) This 

electrical field allows a capacitor to store charge. (Id.) 

A particular arrangement of an inductor, diode, and capacitor can create a step-up circuit. 

(Id ¶ 35.) A step-up circuit stores more voltage in the capacitor than a voltage source powering 

the circuit, so that the circuit can provide more charge to an element than can be provided by the 

voltage source. (Id.) 

An example step-up circuit, in charging mode, with a voltage source, inductor, diode, and 

capacitor is: 

(Id ¶ 36.) 

The step-up circuit can “supercharge” the capacitor by charging the capacitor to a voltage 

greater than the voltage source. (Id at ¶¶ 36-38.) When the circuit is initially activated, current 

will flow from the voltage source to the inductor. (Id.) The inductor converts the initial current 

to energy and stores the energy in its magnetic field. (Id.) Once the inductor’s magnetic field 

becomes saturated, the current from the voltage source flows through the inductor to the diode. 

(Id.) At this point, since the voltage on the anode of the diode is greater than the cathode, the 

diode allows the current to pass and flow through the inductor to the capacitor. (Id.) As the 

capacitor fills up with charge, its voltage will approach the voltage of the voltage source. (Id.) 

When the voltage on the capacitor equals the voltage of the voltage source, the current through 

the circuit begins to decrease. (Id.) In response to the decreasing current, the inductor will 

release the energy stored in its magnetic field, which will flow to the capacitor via the diode 

(which is still forward biased). (Id.) This extra current to the capacitor will cause the voltage of 

the capacitor to exceed the voltage of the voltage source. (Id.) When this happens, the voltage on 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 9 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 6

dc-894392 

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 cathode of the diode will become greater than the voltage of the anode, causing the diode to 

become reverse biased, thereby preventing the flow of current through the exemplary step-up 

circuit. (Id.) When the diode becomes reverse biased, the charge on the capacitor will become 

“trapped,” meaning that the capacitor will now hold and maintain a charge that is greater than the 

voltage of the voltage source. (Id.) In this way, the voltage is “stepped-up,” resulting in a greater 

voltage stored on the capacitor. 

The step-up circuit discussed above is a conventional circuit that has been developed and 

employed in various applications for decades. As an example, U.S. Patent 4,648,093 to Sasnett 

(Yang Decl. Ex. 2 (“Sasnett”)), filed over 30 years ago, discloses a step-up circuit in a laser diode 

firing system. FIG. 2 of Sasnett (reproduced below with annotations) includes the same voltage 

source, inductor, diode, and capacitor step-up circuit described above.

Sasnett describes a circuit that is configured to “supercharge” capacitor 44 so that the 

stored charge can be made available to a gas discharge laser 10, thereby causing the laser to emit 

light. Sasnett describes the operation of the step-up circuit, explaining that “capacitor 44 is 

charged to a potential equal to the potential across inductor 42 plus the potential of high voltage 

DC power supply 36. Diode 40 prevents discharge of capacitor 44 into high voltage DC power 

supply 36 when capacitor 44 is charged above a potential equal to that of high voltage DC power 

supply 36.” (Sasnett at 5:49-63 (emphasis added).) 

B. The ’936 Patent Discloses a Step-Up Circuit

The ’936 Patent is generally directed to a laser diode firing system in a LIDAR device. 

The laser diode firing system disclosed in the ’936 Patent, when triggered, delivers a pulse of 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 10 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 7

dc-894392 

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 

electrical current to a laser diode. (Hobbs Rep. ¶ 42.) To deliver the pulse, the circuit described 

in the ’936 Patent employs a step-up circuit to charge a storage capacitor that is subsequently 

discharged into the laser diode during a discharge process. (Id.) 

FIG. 5A (reproduced below) illustrates the laser diode firing system of the ’936 Patent: 

Fig. 5A includes a voltage source 502 in series with an inductor 510, a diode 514, and a capacitor 

516, just like the step-up circuits known in the prior art. The circuit also includes a transistor 520 

that acts like a switch. (Hobbs Rep. ¶ 44.) When turned on and off, transistor 520 toggles the 

configuration of the circuit between a charging configuration and a discharging configuration. 

(Id.) 

When the circuit is in the charging configuration, it utilizes the step-up circuit to charge 

capacitor 516 to a voltage that exceeds the voltage source 502. The current from voltage source 

502 enters the inductor 510, which stores the current as energy in a magnetic field. Over time, the 

voltage across the capacitor will become approximately equal to the voltage source 502, as the 

capacitor stores the charge flowing from the voltage source. As the voltage of the capacitor 516 

approaches the voltage of voltage source 502, the inductor will release its stored energy, which 

will then flow as current into the capacitor, thereby supercharging it. 

Once capacitor 516 is charged to a value higher than voltage source 502, the capacitor will 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 11 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 8

dc-894392 

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 

seek to discharge and send current back to voltage source 502. But diode 514 prevents this 

discharge so that capacitor 516 can maintain its supercharged state. Diode 514 becomes reverse 

biased at the point when capacitor 516 would seek to discharge its excess current back to voltage 

source 502. The ’936 patent states: “The diode 514 is forward biased (and thus allows the 

capacitor 516 to charge) when the voltage at node A 512 is greater than the voltage on the 

capacitor 516.” (’936 patent at 18:35-40). “Upon the diode 514 being reverse biased, the current 

through the inductor 510 goes to zero and the voltage across the inductor 510 settles at zero, 

which sets node A to the voltage of the voltage source 502 (e.g., the voltage V1), but the 

capacitor 516 may hold a higher voltage (e.g., about 2 V1).” (Id at 18:62-67 (emphasis added).) 

ARGUMENT

A. The Court Should Construe “Diode” and “Charging Path” Because the 

Parties Dispute Their Meaning

It is appropriate for courts to engage in claim construction when “the parties present a 

fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term.” O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362. “A 

determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ 

may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a 

term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1361.

Although Waymo argues that the Court should not construe either “diode” or “charging 

path,” Waymo also disagrees with Uber’s proposed constructions of those terms. Waymo 

disagrees with Uber’s construction of “diode” for requiring “the flow of current in one direction 

only” and its expert proffers an alternative construction of “conduct[ing] electricity much more 

easily in one direction that in the other.” (Dkt. 1116-1, ¶ 59.) Waymo also disagrees with Uber’s 

construction of “charging path,” arguing that it should mean “a path for charging,” (Pl. Waymo’s 

Opening Claim Constr. Br. (Dkt. No. 1116) (“Br.”) at 15:27-28) and not require that the charging 

path be “configured to charge the capacitor to a voltage higher than the supply voltage,” as in 

Uber’s construction. (Br. at 17:10-20.) But Waymo cannot simultaneously dispute Uber’s 

construction and also argue that the terms need not be construed. Thus, because the parties

dispute the meaning of “diode” and “charging path,” the Court should construe both terms. Every 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 12 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 9

dc-894392 

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 

Penny Counts, 563 F.3d at 1383 (“[T]the court must see to it that disputes concerning the scope of 

the patent claims are fully resolved.”). 

Waymo repeatedly cites Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 

1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) to argue that the Court need not construe “diode” or “charging circuit.” 

(Br. at 2:15-21, 13:10-16, 16:5-8.) But Thorner does not hold that claim terms cannot be 

construed, but instead restates the well-known canon of claim construction: terms “are generally

given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art 

when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. 

This is exactly the standard that Uber follows in its claim construction arguments below.

Moreover, in Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York. v. Symantec Corp., 

811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit rejected the argument Waymo advances here, 

stating: “Our case law does not require explicit redefinition or disavowal . . . . The specification 

is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis, and is, in fact, the single best guide to 

the meaning of a disputed term.” Trustees, 811 F.3d at 1363 (internal quotations and citation 

omitted, emphasis in original). The Federal Circuit continued:

[T]he claims . . . do not stand alone. Rather they are part of a fully 

integrated written instrument, consisting principally of a 

specification that concludes with the claims . . . . The only meaning 

that matters in claim construction is the meaning in the context of 

the patent. . . . . [¶] Thus, we reject [patentee’s] argument that the 

presumption of plain and ordinary meaning can be overcome in 

only two circumstances: [when] the patentee has expressly defined 

a term or has expressly disavowed the full scope of the claim in the 

specification and the prosecution history. As our en banc opinion in 

Phillips made clear, a claim term may be clearly redefined without 

an explicit statement of redefinition and even when guidance is not 

provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may 

define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be 

found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.

Id. at 1363-64 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 13 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 10

dc-894392 

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 

B. “diode”

Uber’s Construction Dr. Wolfe’s Construction Waymo’s Construction 

“a two-terminal electronic 

device that allows the flow of 

current in one direction only” 2

(Claims 1, 9, and 17) 

“a two-terminal electronic 

device that will conduct 

electricity much more easily in 

one direction than in the other” 

Plain meaning

Uber’s construction of “diode” specifies that a diode “allows the flow of current in one 

direction only.” Waymo disagrees because a tiny amount of leakage current exists when a diode 

is reverse biased. The main issue for the Court to decide is whether the construction of “diode” 

must take into account this miniscule leakage current.

1. The ’936 Patent describes the claimed “diode” as allowing the flow of 

current in one direction only. 

The purpose of the diode in the ’936 Patent is to allow the flow of current in one direction 

only. The claims recite that the “diode” is part of a “charging path” that charges a “capacitor” 

(see claim 1: “the charging path includes...the diode...[and] the capacitor is configured to charge 

via the charging path.”). Fig. 5C, reproduced below, shows diode 514 as part of the charging path 

for capacitor 516: 

 2

 Uber revises its proposed construction of “diode” to address arguments raised by 

Waymo, for the first time, in its opening brief. Although the parties previously met and conferred 

on July 24, 2017, Waymo did not identify any part of Uber’s constructions with which it 

disagreed at that time.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 14 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 11

dc-894392 

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 specification of the ’936 Patent explains: “the diode 514 regulates the voltage applied 

to the capacitor 516.” (’936 patent at 18:32-35.) When the voltage at capacitor 516 is less than 

the voltage source 502, diode 514 is forward biased and allows current to flow along the charging 

path to charge capacitor 516. (Id. at 5:9-12; 18:35-37.) When capacitor 516 charges to a level 

higher than voltage source 502, then diode 514 becomes reverse biased “to thereby prevent the 

capacitor from discharging.” (Id. 5:12-16 (emphasis added).) The specification further states: 

“Upon the diode 514 being reverse biased, the current through the inductor 510 goes to zero and 

the voltage across inductor 510 settles at zero.” (Id. at 18:62-64 (emphasis added).) A person of 

skill would understand that reverse-biased diode 514 blocks current flowing backwards, thereby 

causing the zeroing of inductor 510’s current and voltage. (Hobbs Rep. ¶ 59.) 

At his deposition, Waymo’s expert admitted that the specification discloses that diode 

514, in its reverse-biased state, blocks current from flowing in the reverse direction: 

Because the voltage is very low, for a practical sense, it’s blocked. 

That’s the patentee’s language, not mine I’m just repeating it. But 

that’s what “blocked” means in that sense, is that it’s reversed 

biased because we’re near the zero point and there’s little or no 

current that's flowing. 

(Wolfe Dep. Tr. at 108:2-17 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, the intrinsic record, as admitted by 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 15 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 12

dc-894392 

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 

Waymo’s expert, discloses that the diode “allows the flow of current in one direction only,” in 

accordance with Uber’s construction. 

2. Waymo’s insistence on including leakage current in the construction of 

“diode” is unnecessary and confusing.

Waymo faults Uber’s construction of “diode” for not giving credence to leakage current—

a tiny amount of current that leaks through when a diode is reverse biased. (Br. at 14:20-15:9.) 

Uber’s construction does not reference leakage current because (i) leakage current is not

mentioned in the ’936 Patent, and (ii) practically, leakage current is so small that it would have no 

effect on the claimed circuit of the ’936 Patent. As explained by Dr. Hobbs, current flowing 

through a forward-biased laser diode is generally at least a million times greater than leakage 

current through the diode in a reverse-biased state. (Hobbs Rep. ¶¶ 32, 62.)

At his deposition, Waymo’s expert admitted on multiple occasions that that the leakage 

current of a diode is very small. 

• “[T]he words ‘reversed biased’ tell us that it exists’ but we're right up against the 

null point in that particular situation that's being described there. So the current is 

about close to zero as anybody would care about.” (Wolfe Dep. Tr. at 60:13-17 

(emphasis added); 

• Leakage current is “generally several orders of magnitude less than the maximum 

forward current of the diode.” (Id. at 58:7-13); 

• “[I]f we were to be hyper technical bit there would be a very very small reverse 

current, but it's right up against the point where it would be zero. (Id. at 60:7-10 

(emphasis added).) 

Despite the insignificance of leakage current, and the fact that it is never referenced in the 

’936 Patent, Waymo expends significant amount of effort explaining the concept of leakage 

current in its briefing, including with its misleading demonstratives. For example, one of 

Waymo’s demonstratives, reproduced below, shows a forward-biased state of a diode with 

current, shown in a dotted red line, allowed to flow in the forward direction: 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 16 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 13

dc-894392 

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 

Waymo’s second demonstrative shows a reverse-biased diode using the same dotted red 

line, except with the arrow pointing in the reverse direction. 

Waymo’s use of the same dotted red line misleads the reader into believing that the 

leakage current, which Waymo’s own expert admits is miniscule, is somehow equivalent or even 

on the same scale as the free flow of current in the forward direction 

The reason why Waymo emphasizes the existence of leakage current—even though it is of 

no consequence to the operation of the circuit claimed in the ’936 Patent—is to advance its 

infringement argument under the doctrine of equivalents. Waymo will argue that diodes allow 

current to flow in both directions, just like resistors, and therefore, diodes and resistors are 

equivalent. Thus, Waymo will argue that an attribute of diodes that is insignificant and irrelevant 

to the operation of the claimed circuit is the basis for concluding that a diode is insubstantially 

different from a resistor. Including the notion of leakage current in a construction of “diode” is 

unnecessary and likely to cause jury confusion. 

C. “charging path” 

Uber’s Construction Waymo’s Construction

“a path allowing current to flow from the 

inductor to the capacitor, the path configured to 

charge the capacitor to a voltage higher than 

the supply voltage” 

(Claims 1, 9, and 17) 

Plain meaning

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 17 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 14

dc-894392 

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. The intrinsic record demonstrates that the “charging path” is part of a 

step-up circuit.

As explained in Dr. Hobbs’ declaration and as set forth below, a person of skill would 

understand that the claimed “charging path” requires that it “charge the capacitor to a voltage 

higher than the supply voltage” in view of the intrinsic record. Waymo has no expert opinion to 

the contrary, because it never asked its expert to provide such an opinion on this particular topic.

(Wolfe Dep. Tr. at 85:21-86:4.) 

The claims recite a configuration of circuit elements that result in a step-up circuit. For 

example, claim 1 recites “a voltage source,” “an inductor coupled to the voltage source,” “a diode 

coupled to the voltage source via the inductor,” and a “capacitor coupled to a charging 

path...wherein the charging path includes the inductor and the diode.” A person of skill would 

draw the claimed arrangement of circuit elements as:

This is the same configuration of the step-up circuit described above in the background 

section. (Hobbs Rep. ¶ 69.) Independent claim 1 further describes the operation of the claimed 

circuit in a manner consistent with a step-up circuit: “responsive to the transistor being turned 

off, the capacitor is configured to charge via the charging path such a voltage across the capacitor 

increases from a lower voltage to a higher voltage and the inductor is configured to release energy 

stored in the magnetic field such that a current through the inductor decreases from a higher 

current level to a lower current level.” The additional release of energy from the claimed 

“inductor” causes the supercharging of the “capacitor,” as in a step-up circuit. Because the claims 

require that the “charging path” include an inductor that releases energy stored in the magnetic 

field and that the charging path increases the voltage level on the capacitor, one of skill in the art 

would conclude that the recited “charging path” is a step-up circuit. (Id ¶¶ 67-73.) 

The specification of the ’936 patent is consistent with interpreting the term “charging path” 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 18 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 15

dc-894392 

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 

as a step-up circuit. The specification discloses that the voltage source, inductor, diode, and 

capacitor are in series—the same configuration as a step-up circuit. (Id. ¶ 74.) 

The specification also explicitly states that the configuration is that of a step-up circuit, 

whereby the capacitor is supercharged by the energy released from the inductor. The ’936 Patent 

explains: “At block 654, the capacitor is charged from energy released by the inductor” (’936 

Patent at 26:35-36); “[t]he diode 514 and inductor 510 can thus combine to cause the capacitor 

516 to be charged to a voltage that exceeds the voltage V1 of the voltage source 502.” (Id. at 

21:40-42.) The specification goes on to disclose that during the charging mode, “the diode 514 is 

forward biased when the voltage across the capacitor 516 is a lower level, such as between time 

times [sic] Toff and T2 as shown in FIG. 5b when the capacitor voltage Vcap charges from less than 

V1 to about 2V1.” (Id at 21:42-46.) 

FIG. 5B (reproduced below, with annotations) also illustrates that the circuit is configured 

to cause the voltage across the storage capacitor (Vcap) to exceed the voltage of the power 

supply. (Hobbs Rep. ¶ 75.) As shown in the figure, Vcap (the voltage across the capacitor) is 

charged to 2V1, which is twice the voltage of the source. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 19 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 16

dc-894392 

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 claims of the ’936 Patent describe circuit elements in the configuration of a 

step-up circuit, which is confirmed by the specification, the proper construction of the term 

“charging path” should include “charg[ing] the capacitor to a voltage higher than the supply 

voltage.” 

2. Waymo’s reliance on claim differentiation fails because Uber’s 

construction does not render the dependent claims superfluous.

The doctrine of claim differentiation does not apply, unless the construction would render 

a dependent claim superfluous. SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Eng'g, Inc., 465 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 

2006). In other words, when the “dependent claims contain additional limitations that do not fall 

within the scope of the independent claims,” the “dependent claims are not rendered superfluous 

by the Court's construction” and claim differentiation does not apply. Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza 

Media Sys., No. 11-CV-02243-JST, 2014 WL 709865, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2014); see also 

EPL Holdings, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-CV-04306-JST, 2014 WL 491270, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 4, 2014). 

Waymo argues that Uber’s construction of “charging path” is improper because certain 

dependent claims already include the requirement of charging the “capacitor to a voltage higher 

than the supply voltage.” (Br. at 16:11-20.) To make its point, Waymo uses the following table 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 20 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 17

dc-894392 

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 

comparing Uber’s construction with dependent claim 4: 

Waymo’s ellipsis omits the majority of the language of dependent claim 4 (shown in 

underlining below), including the limitations of “an anode” and “a cathode” that Waymo argues3

are not required in independent claim 1:

4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the higher voltage level is 

greater than a voltage of the voltage source, and wherein the diode 

has an anode coupled to the voltage source via the inductor and a 

cathode coupled to the capacitor, such that the diode is forward 

biased when the voltage across the capacitor is at the lower voltage 

level and the diode is reverse biased when the voltage across the 

capacitor is at the higher voltage level. 

Waymo’s ellipses notwithstanding, dependent claim 4 includes limitations that are not in 

Uber’s construction of independent claim 1. Dependent claim 4 therefore would not be rendered 

superfluous by Uber’s construction and cannot support Waymo’s claim differentiation argument. 

Moreover, asserted independent claim 17 does not have a claim that depends from it that specifies 

that a capacitor is charged to a level higher than the voltage source. Thus, Waymo’s claim 

differentiation arguments would not apply to independent claim 17. 

Regardless, as discussed above, Uber’s construction of “charging path” results from the 

intrinsic evidence, which overcomes any presumption of claim differentiation. See Kraft Foods, 

Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

Waymo cites Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) to 

 3

 On page 14 fn1 of its opening brief, Waymo argued that the specification did not require 

that the claimed “diode” included an anode and a cathode. Uber subsequently revised its 

construction to remove the requirement of those limitations. Now, neither party’s construction of 

“diode” requires that it include an anode and cathode. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 21 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 18

dc-894392 

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 

support its claim differentiation argument, but this case is inapposite. In Liebel-Falrsheim, the 

court found that “the only significant distinction” between the independent and dependent claims 

was the use in the dependent claims of a pressure jacket, which “undermines [defendant’s] 

contention that all of the claims of the [asserted] patents require the presence of a pressure 

jacket.” Liebel-Flarsheim at 910. This case differs because there are several significant 

distinctions between independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 of the ’936 Patent, including, as 

discussed above, limitations that are not in Uber’s construction of independent claim 1. 

Waymo also cites to Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) to argue that Uber’s construction limits the claims to a specific embodiment. (Br. at 17:10-

20.) This is incorrect because Uber’s construction is consistent with how a person of skill would 

understand the claimed “charging path” in view of the intrinsic record, as explained in Dr. Hobbs’ 

declaration. Dr. Hobbs’ opinion is unrebutted, as Waymo never asked its expert to provide such 

an opinion on this particular topic. (Wolfe Dep. Tr. at 85:21-86:4.) And because the term 

“charging path” is not a term of art, this is a case where “meaning of a claim term as understood 

by persons of skill in the art is not readily apparent” and the court should construe the term 

consistent with the intrinsic record and how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand its 

meaning. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 521 F.3d at 1362. 

D. “wherein the capacitor is charged immediately following emission of a pulse 

of light from the light emitting element”

The Supreme Court heightened the standard for evaluating indefiniteness such that it is no 

longer “sufficient that a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent’s claims.” Nautilus, 134 S. 

Ct. at 2130. Instead, a patent must give “clear notice of what is claimed, thereby apprising the 

public of what is still open to them.” Id. at 2129 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Accordingly, “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification 

delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those 

skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Id. at 2124; see also Interval Licensing LLC v. 

AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“a term of degree fails to provide sufficient 

notice of its scope if it depends on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion.”) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 22 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 19

dc-894392 

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 

(internal citations omitted).

The term “wherein the capacitor is charged immediately following emission of a pulse of 

light from the light emitting element,” as recited in dependent claims 3, 11, and 19, is indefinite 

because a person of skill would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, when a 

capacitor is or is not “charged immediately.” 

A person of skill would understand that the claim term describes a capacitor being fully

charged immediately after laser emission (“the capacitor is charged...”). (Hobbs Rep. ¶ 79.) 

This is confirmed by the specification, which describes “a capacitor recharging interval ΔtCHARGE” 

that allows the capacitor to fully charge 500 nanoseconds after the laser discharge completes:

As shown in FIG. 5B, a capacitor recharging interval ΔtCHARGE

begins at the transistor turn off time TOFF and ends with the reverse 

biasing of the diode 514, at time T2. The capacitor recharging 

interval ΔtCHARGE may be approximately 500 nanoseconds, for 

example. Moreover, by configuring the firing circuit 500 such that 

the capacitor 516 is recharged immediately following a pulse 

emission, the firing circuit 500 can be recharged and ready to emit a 

subsequent pulse faster than an alternative configuration.” 

(’936 Patent at 21:55-64 (emphasis added).) Therefore, “the capacitor is charged immediately” 

limitation refers to ΔtCHARGE, the total amount of time required to charge the capacitor. (Hobbs 

Rep. ¶ 80.) 

A person of skill, however, could not determine whether a given capacitor fully charges 

immediately. Even if a ΔtCHARGE time of 500 nanoseconds constituted an immediate recharge, 

“the edges of the claim are murkier.” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc, No. 15-CV05008-PSG, 2016 WL 3124614, at *12 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2016). For example, a person of skill 

could not determine if 501, 550, or 1,000 nanoseconds would fall within the scope of 

“immediately.” (Hobbs Rep. ¶ 82.) 

Waymo argues that “wherein the capacitor is charged immediately following emission of 

a pulse of light from the light emitting element” refers to the transition between the discharge 

cycle and charge cycle. (Br. at 18:11-13.) But, as discussed above, a person of skill would 

understand that the term refers not only to the transition period after emission, but also to the 

amount of time it takes to completely charge the capacitor. Because a person of skill would not 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 23 of 24
UBER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 20

dc-894392 

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 

understand the boundaries of “immediately” charging a capacitor with any degree of certainty, the 

claim is indefinite. 

Dated: August 16, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs

MICHAEL A. JACOBS

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1233 Filed 08/16/17 Page 24 of 24