TPL’S OPPOSITION TO BARCO’S MOTION TO

STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S THIRD AMENDED

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

CASE NOS. 3:08-CV-00877, 3:08-CV-0082

AND 3:08-CV-05398 JW

JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. 157781

jim@agilityiplaw.com

MICHELLE BREIT, State Bar No. 133143

mbreit@agilityiplaw.com

AGILITY IP LAW, LLP

149 Commonwealth Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Telephone: (650) 227-4800

Facsimile: (650) 318-3483

Attorneys for Defendants

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and

ALLIACENSE LIMITED

CHARLES T. HOGE, State Bar No. 110696

choge@knlh.com

KIRBY NOONAN LANCE &HOGE

35 Tenth Avenue

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 231-8666

Facsimile: (619) 231-9593

Attorneys for Defendant

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BARCO, N.V.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-cv-05398 JW

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.’S

(“TPL”) OPPOSITION TO BARCO’S

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF

TPL’S THIRD AMENDED

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS FOR

U.S. PATENT NO. 5,809,336; U.S.

PATENT NO. 5,440,749; AND U.S.

PATENT NO. 5,530,890

Date: July 3, 2012, 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. James Ware

Special Master: Thomas HR Denver

Case3:08-cv-05398-JW Document277 Filed06/15/12 Page1 of 17

TPL’S OPPOSITION TO BARCO’S MOTION TO

STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S AMENDED

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

-ii- CASE NOS. 3:08-CV-00877, 3:08-CV-0082

AND 3:08-CV-05398 JW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 1

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD. ..................................................................................... 1

II. THE AMENDED ICS FOR THE ‘336 PATENT PROVIDE THE

REQUISITE LINK BETWEEN THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND THE

ASSERTED CLAIMS. .............................................................................................. 3

A. TPL’s Reliance on Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration Provide

a Direct Connection Between TPL’s Theory of Infringement, the

Claims and the Accused Products. ................................................................ 3

1. The Amended ICs for Claim 1 of the ‘336 Patent Provide the

Requisite Linking. ............................................................................. 4

2. The Amended ICs for Claim 6 of the ‘336 Patent Provide the

Requisite Linking. ............................................................................. 5

3. The Amended ICs for the Remaining Claims of the ‘336

Patent Provide the Requisite Linking. ............................................... 6

4. Barco Misrepresents the Content of Dr. Oklobdzija’s

Declaration. ....................................................................................... 7

B. The Agere and LSI Whitepapers Provide General Background

Information Supporting TPL’s Theories of Infringement. ............................ 9

C. TPL Only References Non-Barco Products That Are Used in the

Accused Products. ......................................................................................... 9

III. THE AMENDED ICS FOR THE ‘749 PATENT PROVIDE THE

REQUISITE LINK BETWEEN THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND THE

ASSERTED CLAIMS. ............................................................................................ 12

A. TPL’s Reliance on Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration Provide

a Direct Connection Between TPL’s Theory of Infringement, the

Claims and the Accused Products. .............................................................. 12

B. TPL Only References Non-Barco Products That Are Used in the

Accused Products. ....................................................................................... 13

IV. THE AMENDED ICS FOR THE ‘890 PATENT PROVIDE THE

REQUISITE LINK BETWEEN THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND THE

ASSERTED CLAIMS. ............................................................................................ 14

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 14

Case3:08-cv-05398-JW Document277 Filed06/15/12 Page2 of 17

TPL’S OPPOSITION TO BARCO’S MOTION TO

STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S AMENDED

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

-iii- CASE NOS. 3:08-CV-00877, 3:08-CV-0082

AND 3:08-CV-05398 JW

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Forest Labs. v. Abbott Labs., 239 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................... 2

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 2

Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................... 2

Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................ 1, 2

Network Caching Technology Corp. v. Novell, Inc., No. C-01-2709 VRW, 2003 WL

21699799 (N.D. Cal. Mar, 21, 2003) ...................................................................................... 1, 8

O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., 467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................. 1

Rules

Patent L.R. 3-1 ............................................................................................................................ 1, 14

INTRODUCTION

The essence of both Judge Lloyd and Special Master Denver’s orders require TPL to

amend its ICs to “either provide information concerning the products at issue or explain how

and/or why information concerning any products not at issue is relevant to its ICs.” Denver Order

at 2 (quoting Judge Lloyd Order). This applies to both publications and unrelated products relied

upon in the ICs. Denver Order at 3-5. Barco complains in its Motion to Strike (“Barco Motion”)

that TPL has failed to properly amend its infringement contentions. See Barco Motion at 1-2.

Specifically, Barco alleges the ICs continue to rely on unrelated materials, references and products

and, further, the contentions fail to provide the requisite link between the accused products and the

asserted claims, particularly in regards to the Chandra reference and the Oklobdzija Declaration.

As set forth in detail below, TPL’s Amended ICs more than satisfy the requirements articulated in

Judge Lloyd and Special Master Denver’s Orders. Barco’s Motion should, therefore, be denied.

ARGUMENT

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD.

TPL’s ICs do exactly what the Patent Local Rules require: provide Barco with notice of

TPL’s infringement theories. Network Caching Technology Corp. v. Novell, Inc., No. C-01-2709

VRW, 2003 WL 21699799, *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar, 21, 2003) (“[A] party may comply with Patent

L.R. 3-1 by setting forth particular theories of infringement with sufficient specificity to provide

defendants with notice of infringement beyond that which is provided by the mere language of the

patents themselves”) (emphasis added). As the Federal Circuit has explained, the Northern

District’s Patent Local Rules are designed to “allow defendant to pin down the plaintiff’s theories

of liability and the plaintiff to pin down the defendant's theories of defense.” O2 Micro Int'l Ltd.

v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).

Nothing more is required.

The Federal Circuit also holds there is no general rule requiring actual tests or

experiments on the accused product or method to prove infringement. Martek Biosciences Corp.

v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Rather, “[a] patentee may prove infringement

by ‘any method of analysis that is probative of the fact of infringement.’” Forest Labs. v. Abbott

-2- CASE NOS. 3:08-CV-00877, 3:08-CV-0082

AND 3:08-CV-05398 JW

Labs., 239 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and circumstantial evidence may be sufficient,

Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” Martek,

579 F.3d at 1372.

In Martek, the asserted patent claim called for a process of fermentation using a medium

of non-chloride sodium salts, resulting in reduced corrosion compared to a medium of chloride

sodium salt. The patentee’s expert never tested the accused process, and instead relied on

scientific literature to opine that because the accused process used non-chloride salt, it

necessarily meant that corrosion was reduced. The expert explained that he “need not conduct

actual tests” in order to reach his conclusions because “the literature is quite clear” regarding

the corrosive effects of chlorides on stainless steels. Id. at 1372-73 (emphasis added). He

further explained, “it’s just not a rule of thumb, it’s a scientific fact.” Id. at 1373. The Federal

Circuit agreed, finding that there was no “general rule requiring one who alleges infringement of

a claim containing functional limitations to perform actual tests or experiments on the accused

product or method.” Id. at 1374.

Nor is there any requirement that the scientific literature be addressed to the specific

accused product. The scientific literature the expert relied on in Martek was not a study of the

specific accused process – had that been the case, then the holding that no testing was required

would have been unnecessary. Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee can

prove infringement simply by demonstrating that a published standard infringes, and that the

accused product claims compliance with that standard. Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d

1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[I]f an accused product operates in accordance with a standard,

then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused

product.”). This holds true, even though the standard was created with no knowledge of the

specific accused product.

II. THE AMENDED ICS FOR THE ‘336 PATENT PROVIDE THE REQUISITE

LINK BETWEEN THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND THE ASSERTED CLAIMS.

A. TPL’s Reliance on Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration Provide a Direct

Connection Between TPL’s Theory of Infringement, the Claims and the

Accused Products.

TPL’s theory of infringement relies on the fact that integrated circuits found in the accused

products are fabricated using a semiconductor manufacturing process that results in integrated

circuits or chips having certain characteristics or inherent properties. Both Chandra and the

Oklobdzija Declaration evidence that under such manufacturing processes, the resulting integrated

circuits will exhibit common operational characteristics well known to those skilled in the art.

These characteristics include variations in the processing speed of on-chip components – e.g.,

transistors – due to operational temperature and voltage. Further, variations in processing speeds

between individual chips cut from the same wafer will occur, which is commonly referred to as

process or manufacturing variation. These inherent characteristics – i.e., variations in processing

speed due to temperature, voltage and manufacturing process – are well known to those skilled in

the art, as clearly evidenced by citations to Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration made in the

ICs. And, as Barco is well aware, TPL discloses as part of its infringement contentions these

inherent characteristics are found in all integrated circuits, including those present in the accused

products.

In its motion, Barco identifies several instances where one or more of the variations

discussed above are present in the claim limitations. See Motion at 9-11. Barco then complains

that the ICs do not specifically state where such variations can be found within the accused

products. See id., at 8:26-28. Barco’s complaint is misplaced, however, as the ICs make perfectly

clear, based on Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration, that the claimed variations due to one or

more of temperature, voltage and process are germane to and alleged to be present within the

integrated circuits found in the accused products. Indeed, as the ICs set forth, the claimed

variations are inherent in the operation of the chips or integrated circuits found in the accused

products. Barco’s assertion that TPL has failed to identify where such variations can be found

within the accused products is belied by Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration, which directly

relate these limitations with the integrated circuitry found in the accused products. Described

below in more detail is the requisite linking which Barco wrongly asserts is lacking in TPL’s

Second Amended ICs.

1. The Amended ICs for Claim 1 of the ‘336 Patent Provide the

Requisite Linking.

As identified by Barco, claim 1 of the ‘336 patent includes two limitations referring to

“manufacturing variations.” See Motion at 9. The first limitation reads:

said central processing unit and said ring oscillator variable speed system clock

each including a plurality of electronic devices constructed of the same process

technology with corresponding manufacturing variations

Id. The ICs identify the claimed CPU, ring oscillator and electronic devices as residing on a

Virtex-5 monolithic integrated circuit and fabricated using the same semiconductor

manufacturing process. See Barco Ex I-1, PIC20006. The ICs then refer to Chandra to establish

the existence of variations that “arise due to processing and masking limitations, and result in

random or spatially varying deviations from designed parameter values” – the claimed

manufacturing variations. Id. The ICs next provide a statement using Chandra to link the claim

limitation to the accused products: “It is well known to those skilled in the art of semiconductor

manufacturing that devices constructed with the same process technology will have

corresponding manufacturing variations. This fact is supported by the cited Chandra excerpts

above and below.” Id. (emphasis added).

The ICs use the Oklobdzija Declaration to further crystalize the infringement theory,

adding that “[c]haracteristics of the transistors specified to be of the same size will vary even

among chips that are produced using the same processing technology. This is known as process

variation.” Id. The ICs conclude with a summary statement that the CPU and ring oscillator (in

the accused product) each include a plurality of electronic devices constructed using the same

process technology and having corresponding manufacturing variations. The theory of

infringement is thus clear – because the CPU, ring oscillator and electronic devices are constructed

using the same process technology, they will exhibit corresponding manufacturing or process

variations. Using Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration, with reference to the integrated circuit

in the accused product, the ICs provide a direct link between the claim limitation and the accused

products.

Similarly, the second limitation reads:

a processing frequency capability of said central processing unit and a speed of said

ring oscillator variable speed system clock varying together due to said

manufacturing variations and due to at least operating voltage and temperature of

said single integrated circuit

Id., at PIC20007. In similar fashion to the foregoing, the ICs point to Chandra which discloses

that “performance of microprocessors or other integrated circuits are impacted by two sources of

variation. Environmental factors arise during the operation of a circuit, and include variations in

power supply, switching activity, and temperature of the chip or across the chip.” Id. Chandra

thus provides an explanation of and supports the well-known variations occurring due to voltage

and temperature; the manufacturing variations were discussed in the previous limitation. The

Oklobdzija Declaration then confirms Chandra in great detail, discussing that those skilled in the

art will recognize the variation in processing speed due to voltage and temperature.

Accordingly, as with the first limitation, the theory of infringement is clear from the ICs,

and the diagrams of the accused products, Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration provide a

direct link between the claim limitation and the accused products. This is clear from a complete

review of the ICs and supporting materials. Barco’s assertion to the contrary is unfounded.

2. The Amended ICs for Claim 6 of the ‘336 Patent Provide the

Requisite Linking.

Claim 6 of the ‘336 patent is similar to claim 1, above, in that it recites as first and second

limitations, respectively, a CPU constructed of a first plurality of electronic devices and an entire

oscillator constructed of a second plurality of electronic devices, both the CPU and entire

oscillator being disposed upon an integrated circuit substrate. See Barco Ex I-1, PIC20011-13.

The second limitation continues:

thus varying the processing frequency of said first plurality of electronic devices

and the clock rate of said second plurality of electronic devices in the same way as

a function of parameter variation in one or more fabrication or operational

parameters associated with said integrated circuit substrate, thereby enabling said

processing frequency to track said clock rate in response to said parameter variation

Id. at PIC20014-16. In similar fashion to claim 1, above, Chandra is employed to explain

variations in the processing speed of on-chip components – e.g., transistors – due to operational

temperature and voltage variations and due to process or manufacturing variations arising through

the manufacture the integrated chips. The Oklobdzija Declaration then confirms and expands the

explanations and knowledge of those skilled in the art provided by Chandra. Finally, the ICs link

the claim limitations to the accused product. For example, the ICs point out that “due to the fact

that the on-chip oscillator’s transistors are manufactured using the same process technology and at

the same time as the CPU and on the same integrated circuit substrate, when the operating

parameters change, the operating frequency capability of the on-chip oscillator and the processing

capability of the CPU will change in the same direction.” Id. at PIC20015. The theory of

infringement is unmistakably clear.

Rather than accept this clear and direct disclosure of TPL’s infringement theory, Barco

attempts to distract and confuse the Court by isolating the last phrase of the limitation (beginning

with the word “thereby”) and attacking it in a vacuum. See Barco Motion at 4. Specifically,

Barco argues the ICs do not explain why Chandra is pertinent to the accused products or provide

a link between the Chandra and the accused products. Barco’s argument is deceptive and wholly

without merit. When the disclosure in the ICs related to this limitation is analyzed as a whole, as

it should be, both Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration are found to provide extensive detail

in explaining the knowledge of those skilled in the art as to variations due to temperature,

voltage and manufacturing. See Barco Ex I-1, PIC20014-16. The ICs then link that general

knowledge to the accused products through the method of manufacture the accused products

undergo when constructed. Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration thus provide a direct link

between the claim limitation and the accused products. Barco’s assertion to the contrary is,

again, unfounded and should be rejected as deceptive and without merit.

3. The Amended ICs for the Remaining Claims of the ‘336 Patent

Provide the Requisite Linking.

Barco identifies claims 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 as suffering the same deficiencies as

discussed above. See Barco Motion at 9-11. Each of these alleged deficiencies may be

addressed similarly to the response provided with regard to claims 1 and 6, above. As a review

of the ICs bears out, Chandra the Oklobdzija Declaration provide extensive detail in explaining

the knowledge of those skilled in the art as to variations due to temperature, voltage and

manufacturing process and, as discussed above and set forth in the ICs, provide a direct link

between the claim limitation and the accused products. Barco’s objections to these ICs should

likewise be rejected.

4. Barco Misrepresents the Content of Dr. Oklobdzija’s Declaration.

Barco’s motion claims that certain portions of Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration cited by TPL

in support for its theory of manufacturing variations are directed solely to the “microprocessor

disclosed in the ’336 patent” and not to characteristics of integrated circuits in general. See

Barco Mot. at 7 (“Incredibly, the ICs cite to paragraphs 10 and 11 from Dr. Oklobdzija’s

declaration that are directed to an explanation of the ‘336 patent rather than any accused Barco

product”). In doing so, Barco misleadingly takes excerpts of the declaration out of context.

Read in full, these paragraphs clearly show that Dr. Oklobodzija is writing about

microprocessors generally.

For example, in paragraph 10 of his declaration, Dr. Oklobdzija states:

The microprocessor disclosed in the ’336 Patent can operate under the variations to

which a typical microprocessor is exposed. Those variations include process

variations incurred during the microprocessor manufacturing, and variations of the

operating parameters that include, but are not limited to, voltage and temperature.

Characteristics of the transistors specified to be of the same size will vary even

among chips that are produced using the same process technology. This is known

as process variation.

Ex. M, para. 10 (emphasis added). The words “those variations” do not refer to the ’336 patent

microprocessor as Barco claims; rather, they refer to “the variations to which a typical

microprocessor is exposed.”

Similarly, paragraph 11 of Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration pertains to the impact of

temperature and voltage on all chips, and not the ’336 patent embodiments as Barco claims. Id. at

para. 11. Dr. Oklobdzija opines, “[i]n addition, each chip may be subjected to different operating

temperature and/or voltage. It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that if there is an

increase in the temperature to which a chip is exposed to, the processing frequency capability of

the microprocessor will be slower and vice versa.” Dr. Oklobdzija is clearly explaining a

phenomenon that applies to all microprocessors, and is not limiting his opinion to the

embodiments described the ’336 patent.

Barco also takes issue with Dr. Oklobdzija’s opinion at paragraph 45, which states:

All of the microprocessors manufactured using integrated circuit manufacturing

techniques in the accused Barco products are subject to variations due to the

variations in the manufacturing process and operating parameters such as, but not

limited to, voltage and temperature. Those are the properties of integrated circuit

manufacturing, and therefore, any product manufactured using this technology will

behave the same way. This is due to the properties of the materials (silicon) from

which modern integrated circuits are manufactured.

Ex. M, para. 45. Barco claims that this is a “naked assertion” that is too general. Barco Mot. at 7.

However, the Lloyd Order already rejected Barco’s claim that the ICs were “too vague” (Lloyd

Order at 6) and the fact that Barco disagrees with Dr. Oklobdzija is of no moment. See Network

Caching Tech., 2003 WL 21699799 at *5 (“[T]here is no requirement that [the plaintiff]

thoroughly present and successfully defend its theories of infringement in the confines of a PIC

chart. At this stage, mapping specific elements of defendants' allegedly infringing products onto

[the plaintiff's] claim construction is adequate.”).

The ICs for this limitation conclude: “The declaration of Dr. Oklobdzija confirms that the

location of this limitation is found within the Virtex-5 chip itself.” Exhibit I-1 at PIC200015.

Thus, the Amended ICs provide a detailed explanatory link between the scientific articles, the

analysis and opinion of a qualified expert, and a link to the accused Barco products. Nothing more

is required under the Patent Local Rules or Judge Lloyd’s Order.

Barco also incorrectly asserts that the newly amended ICs merely replace reliance on the

Sundaresan, Fetzer, and Zuchowski references with further reliance on Chandra and the

Oklobdzija Declaration, and that “the Court has already concluded that Sundaresan, Fetzer, and

Zuchowski do not and cannot show where the claim limitations can be found in the Barco

products.” Motion at 8:24-25. The Special Master’s Order simply stated that a link between

quoted language from these articles and the infringement contention must be apparent. Denver

Order at 4. That link is now apparent with Chandra and the Declaration.

B. The Agere and LSI Whitepapers Provide General Background Information

Supporting TPL’s Theories of Infringement.

Barco next complains that certain ICs reference two whitepapers that Barco claims have no

connection to the accused products. See Barco Motion at 11-14. Barco’s complaint is misplaced.

The ICs identify the accused products as including an Agere microprocessor. See, e.g., Barco Ex.

I-8, PIC200128-29. The Agere whitepaper is used merely to explain what Agere means by “SoC”

or “Systems-on-a-Chip.” See id., PIC200130. Notwithstanding this clarification, in addition to

the whitepaper, the ICs actually show where the specific Agere microprocessor exists within the

specific accused Barco product. See id., PIC200128-30. Read in its entirety, rather than

piecemeal, the ICs make perfect sense and set forth TPL’s theory that the Agere SoC contained in

the accused Barco product contains each of the recited claim limitations. Likewise, the LSI

whitepaper simply provides an explanation of how an LSI SoC works. See Barco Ex. I-5,

PIC20183-85. Further, the ICs actually show the specific LSI microprocessor used in the accused

Barco product. See id. As with the Agere product literature, the LSI whitepaper serves to clarify

and, taken in context with the complete IC for this limitation, clearly indicates TPL’s theory of

infringement. Barco’s objections to use of the Agere and LSI whitepapers regarding Agere and

LSI chips in the ICs should be rejected.

C. TPL Only References Non-Barco Products That Are Used in the Accused

Products.

As Barco itself repeatedly asserts, it does not make many of the components that go into

the accused products. Rather, it uses specialized components from suppliers, such as Texas

Instruments and Rambus, in its projectors. Texas Instruments is well known for inventing and

owning the rights to DLP technology.1 Likewise, Rambus invented and owns the rights to XDR

DRAM.2 In 2007, Texas Instruments publicly announced that it would use Rambus XDR for its

1 See www.dlp.com/technology/dlp-history/default.aspx

2 See www.rambus.com/in/technology/solutions/xdr/

DLP technology.3 As Barco well knows (and in the case of DLP, advertises), these are proprietary

technologies.4

The ICs explain that the accused Barco H400 projector contains a Texas Instruments

DDP3021 chip. See Barco Ex. I-2 at 20275 (“The accused Barco projectors, ICON

H400/H500/H250 DLP Image Processor contain Texas Instruments DDP3021 microprocessors.”).

The Texas Instruments DDP3021 uses “input output” or “I/O” technology in the form of Rambus

XDR DRAM. See Barco Ex. I-2 at 20282 (“Barco Projectors contain a DDP3021 microprocessor

connected to a separate XDR DRAM chip via the XDR I/O Interface.”). This is confirmed by Dr.

Oklobdzija in his declaration:

The Barco Projector iCon H250, iCon H400, iCon H500, ID R600+, and SIM 5R

contain a Rambus EXtreme Data Rate (XDR) memory interface (I/O), which

allows the microprocessor to communicate with XDR dynamic random access

memory(DRAM) in the Barco products.

Ex. M, para. 55.

The excerpt from Rambus’s website about which Barco complains is one touting the fact

that Rambus XDR DRAM interface is incorporated into the Texas Instruments DLP ASIC. See

Barco Mot. at 15, citing Ex. I-2, at PIC20281. Although the Rambus page includes a graphic of a

Texas Instruments projector, the text concerns the role Rambus XDR DRAM plays in the DLP

ASIC system generally, not any specific projector. See Ex. I-2, at PIC20281:

At the heart of a DLP projector is the DLP chip or Digital Micromirror Device

(DMD) with its millions of microscopic mirrors. Image processing and control of

the DMD is handled by the sophisticated DLP ASIC and DMD control IC. This

ASIC incorporates a 2-Byte wide XIO interface which connects to a single 512Mb

XDR DRAM. A single XDR DRAM provides all the necessary bandwidth and

capacity to enable the amazing visual performance of the DLP architecture.

Thus, the cited portion of the Rambus website shows that the Texas Instruments DDP3021

DLP processor within the accused Barco product contains an input/output interface. See Ex. I-2,

3 See news.efytimes.com/e1/19800/TI-Picks-Rambus-XDR-For-DLP-Technology (“TI

Picks Rambus' XDR For DLP Technology”).

at PIC20281. The graphic is just an illustration of a DLP projector generally, and was no doubt

included because Rambus is proud of its partnership with Texas Instruments.5 Per Magistrate

Lloyd’s Order, the IC explains why it is referencing the Rambus website: “The DDP3021 DLP

Processor has an on-chip XDR I/O interface included in the Barco iCon H400/H500/H250

Projectors for communication with the XDR DRAM.” Id.

Likewise, Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration, which is incorporated by reference into the ICs,6

explains:

The Barco Projector iCon H250, iCon H400, iCon H500, ID R600+, and SIM 5R

contain a Rambus EXtreme Data Rate (XDR) memory interface (I/O), which

allows the microprocessor to communicate with XDR dynamic random access

memory (DRAM) in the Barco products.

Ex. M, para. 55. Thus, Barco’s claim (Barco Mot. at 16) that “nowhere does TPL establish that

Barco uses a Rambus XDR DRAM” is both specious and irrelevant. The fact that the ICs

repeatedly explain that the accused Barco projectors contain the Rambus XDR DRAM is

sufficient to give Barco notice of TPL’s infringement theory, and it is not required to “establish”

anything at this point. See Lloyd Order at 5 (“ICs are not meant to provide a forum for litigation

of the substantive issues”).

Barco next argues that TPL improperly points to off-chip RDRAM supplied by Samsung,

as support for its theory that the accused SLM R12+ and RLM R6+ projectors using the DDP1011

processor include a Rambus input/output interface. Barco Mot. at 17. But, Barco misconstrues

(...continued from previous page)

4 See www2.barco.com/en/digitalcinema/DLP-Technology.aspx (“At the heart of every

DLP® projection system is an optical semiconductor known as the DLP® chip, which was

invented by Dr. Larry Hornbeck of Texas Instruments in 1987.”)

5 Barco falsely accuses TPL of adopting a “hide and seek” approach to its ICs. See Barco

Mot. at 16. The link to the Rambus website source is referenced directly under the excerpt, not

hidden.

the claim language at issue. The claim language recites “an on-chip input/output interface and an

off-chip external memory bus ….” The Samsung RDRAM is neither; it is connected to the bus

and the input/output interface. As shown in the very graphic that Barco complains about, the

Texas Instruments DDP1011 has “Includes Rambus™ Interface” printed on the top of the

package.

As TPL explains its theory of infringement: “The DDP1011 DLP Processor has an on-chip

RDRAM I/O interface included in the Barco SLMR12+ Projector for communication with the

Rambus RDRAM.” Ex. I-4, PIC20543-44. Moreover, Dr. Oklobodzija explains:

The Barco Projector RLM R6+ and SLM R12+ contain a Rambus interface

(RDRAM) with dynamic random access memory in the Barco product. The

Alliacense Product Reports show that these two Barco projectors each contain a

Texas Instrument DDP1011 that includes the Rambus I/O interface.

The presence of the Rambus RDRAM confirms the presence of the Rambus RDRAM

interface and thereby clarifies TPL’s theory of infringement. In view of the foregoing, Barco’s

argument that Rambus documents describing Rambus technology “have no connection with the

accused Barco products” (Mot. at 22) should be rejected.

III. THE AMENDED ICS FOR THE ‘749 PATENT PROVIDE THE REQUISITE

LINK BETWEEN THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND THE ASSERTED CLAIMS.

A. TPL’s Reliance on Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration Provide a Direct

Connection Between TPL’s Theory of Infringement, the Claims and the

Accused Products.

In a fashion nearly identical to that described above in connection with the ‘336 patent,

Barco incorrectly asserts that Chandra and the Oklobdzija Declaration have no connection with

the accused products. See Barco Motion at 20. Barco’s incorrect assertion fails.

(...continued from previous page)

6 See Ex. I-2, at PIC20277 n.1 (“The complete declaration of Dr. Vojin Oklobdzija

(‘Oklobdzija Declaration’) dated February 4, 2011 is attached hereto and incorporated by

reference.”).

As identified by Barco, claim 54 of the ‘749 patent includes a limitation referring to

“propagation delays, depending on at least one of [temperature, voltage and microprocessor

fabrication process].” See Motion at 20. The pertinent limitation reads:

said central processing unit integrated circuit and said ring counter variable speed

system clock being provided in a single integrated circuit, said ring counter variable

speed system clock being configured to provide different clock speed to said central

processing unit integrated circuit as a result of transistor propagation delays,

depending on at least one of temperature of said single integrated circuit, voltage

and microprocessor fabrication process for said single integrated circuit

Id.; see also PIC20355-56. The delays based on temperature, voltage or microprocessor

fabrication process are the same or similar to the parameter variations discussed above with

respect to claims 1 and 6 of the ‘’336 patent. The ICs step through the same pattern of identifying

the CPU and ring counter variable speed system clock on a single integrated circuit is done for the

‘336 patent. The ICs then refer to Chandra to establish the existence of variations due to

temperature, voltage and fabrication process. Id. The ICs next provide a statement using Chandra

to link the claim limitation to the accused products, disclosing, for example: “It is well known to

those skilled in the art of semiconductor manufacturing that devices constructed with the same

process technology will have corresponding manufacturing variations. This fact is supported by

the cited Chandra excerpts above and below.” Id. (emphasis added). The Oklobdzija Declaration

goes on the explain that “due to the fact that the on-chip oscillator’s transistors are manufactured

using the same process technology and at the same time as the CPU and on the same integrated

circuit substrate, when the operating parameters change, the operating frequency capability of the

on-chip oscillator and the processing capability of the CPU will change in the same direction.” Id.

at PIC20356. The theory of infringement is unmistakably clear and Chandra and the Oklobdzija

Declaration clearly link the claim limitations to the accused product. Barco’s complaint is clearly

another attempt to use this motion to strike to improperly address substantive issues in this regard

and should be rejected.

B. TPL Only References Non-Barco Products That Are Used in the Accused

Products.

In similar fashion with the ‘336 patent, Barco asserts that TPL incorrectly relies on non-

Barco products. See Barco Motion at 20-21. Indeed, the arguments raised by Barco concern the

same Texas Instruments projector and Rambus XDR DRAM. Id. Barco’s arguments in this

regard are nearly identical to the same arguments raised in connection with the ‘336 patent and

should be rejected for the same reason.

IV. THE AMENDED ICS FOR THE ‘890 PATENT PROVIDE THE REQUISITE

LINK BETWEEN THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND THE ASSERTED CLAIMS.

Again, in similar fashion with the ‘336 patent, Barco asserts that TPL incorrectly relies on

non-Barco products. See Barco Motion at 22-22. The arguments raised by Barco concern the

same Texas Instruments projector and Rambus XDR DRAM. Id. Barco’s arguments are nearly

identical to the same arguments raised in connection with the ‘336 patent and should be rejected

for the same reason.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Barco’s motion to strike TPL’s Third Amended infringement

contentions should be denied. To the extent that the Court finds TPL’s Amended ICs are not

compliant with Patent L.R. 3-1(c), TPL respectfully requests further leave to amend.

Dated: June 12, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

AGILITY IP LAW, LLP

By: /s/ Michelle G. Breit

Michelle G. Breit

Attorneys for Defendants

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED

and ALLIACENSE LIMITED

KIRBY NOONAN LANCE &HOGE

By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge

Charles T. Hoge

Attorneys for Defendant

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

Case3:08-cv-05398-JW Document277 Filed06/15/12 Page17 of 17