Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6128 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`MARK C. SCARSI (Bar No.
`183926)
`mscarsi@milbank.com
`ASHLEE N. LIN (Bar No.
`275267)
`anlin@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY
`& MCCLOY LLP
`2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 424.386.4000
`Fax: 213.629.5063
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. GASPAR
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`cgaspar@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY
`& MCCLOY LLP
`28 Liberty Street
`New York, NY 10005
`Tel: 212.530.5000
`Fax: 212.822.5019
`
`JOHN ALLCOCK (Bar No. 98895)
`john.allcock@dlapiper.com
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM (Bar No.
`174931)
`sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
`ERIN GIBSON (Bar No. 229305)
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`ROBERT WILLIAMS (Bar No. 246990)
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`TIFFANY MILLER (Bar No. 246987)
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`JACOB ANDERSON (Bar No. 265768)
`jacob.anderson@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, California 92101-4297
`Tel: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`
`ROBERT BUERGI (Bar No. 242910)
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`AMY WALTERS (Bar No. 286022)
`amy.walters@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Telephone: 650.833.2000
`Facsimile: 650.833.2001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLE INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WI-LAN, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AND RELATED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`(lead case);
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM
`(consolidated)
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Dept: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`
`WEST\278478978.2
`
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6129 Page 2 of 20
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY ........................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT APPLE’S CONSTRUCTIONS. ............... 3
`
`A.
`
`Subscriber Station Terms (’145, ’723, ’761, ’020, ’757 Patents) ......... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Connection Terms (’145, ’723, ’761, ’020 and ’757 Patents) .............. 6
`
`“QoS” (’145 and ’723 Patents) ............................................................. 9
`
`D.
`
`“queue(s)” (’145, ’723, ’761, ’020 Patents) ........................................ 10
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`“packing sub-header” (’040 Patent) .................................................... 10
`
`“frame map” / “sub-frame map” (’020, ’723, ’757 Patents)............... 12
`
`“poll-me bit” / “poll-me message” (’020 Patent) ............................... 13
`
`The Preamble of Claim 26 of the ’145 Patent Is Limiting ................. 14
`
`“fairness algorithm” (’145 Patent) ...................................................... 15
`
`WEST\278478978.2
`
`-i-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6130 Page 3 of 20
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 10, 11, 15
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp.,
`751 F.2d 1507 (9th Cir. 1985), superseded by statute on other
`grounds as stated in Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int’l Mktg. S.A., 842
`F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................... 1
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs. Inc.,
`772 F.3d 723 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 1, 6, 9
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. Huawei Tech.,
`No. 3:13-cv-783-DMS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013) ................................................ 3
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int’l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 14
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 4, 5
`
`G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms. Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`179 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 15
`
`Gilead Scis. Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.,
`753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.,
`204 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 1, 2
`
`WEST\278478978.2
`
`-ii-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6131 Page 4 of 20
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont.)
`
`
`Page
`
`Int’l Gamco Inc., v. Multimedia Games Inc.,
`732 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1089-92 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010) ................................... 2
`
`Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`254 F.Supp.2d 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ................................................................... 7
`
`Offshore Sportswear, Inc. v. Vuarnet Int’l, B.V.,
`114 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 1
`
`Palmchip Corp. v. Ralink Tech. Corp.,
`No. 13-cv-1567, 2014 WL 12585805 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014) ....................... 14
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 9
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`WEST\278478978.2
`
`-iii-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6132 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Ensemble, not Wi-LAN, purportedly invented elements of a fixed/portable
`
`wireless communication system embodied in the circa-2001 IEEE 802.16 (“Wi-
`
`MAX”) standard. That is the extent of the patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit do
`
`not relate to the similarly named, much later-developed “4G Wi-MAX,” embodied
`
`in IEEE 802.16m, or to any other mobile communication system or standard.
`
`I.
`
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY.
`
`Apple’s claim construction positions are not estopped by this Court’s
`
`decisions in 13-cv-798 (“the -798 case”) decided in 2013. Contrary to Wi-LAN’s
`
`claim, this Court previously construed only one of the nine disputed terms
`
`10
`
`(“packing sub-header”), but collateral estoppel does not apply to that term either.
`
`11
`
`“Collateral estoppel applies if: (1) the issue necessarily decided in the previous
`
`12
`
`proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the first
`
`13
`
`proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against
`
`14
`
`which collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first
`
`15
`
`proceeding.” e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs. Inc., 772 F.3d 723, 726 (Fed. Cir.
`
`16
`
`2014) (citing Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`17
`
`“The party asserting preclusion bears the burden of showing with clarity and
`
`18
`
`certainty what was determined by the prior judgment.” Offshore Sportswear, Inc. v.
`
`19
`
`Vuarnet Int’l, B.V., 114 F.3d 848, 850 (9th Cir. 1997). “If there is doubt, however,
`
`20
`
`collateral estoppel will not be applied.” Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d
`
`21
`
`1507, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in
`
`22
`
`Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int’l Mktg. S.A., 842 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1988). Even
`
`23
`
`where the requirements for collateral estoppel are met, the Court has discretion not
`
`24
`
`to apply the doctrine. Id. at 1519.
`
`25
`
`Here, Wi-LAN cannot meet the requirements of collateral estoppel because
`
`26
`
`none of the claim construction issues before the court are “identical” issues that
`
`27
`
`were “necessarily decided” in the -798 case. The -798 case involved the ’040 and
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`’640 Patents, which the Court found were not infringed. See -798 case, Dkt. Nos.
`WEST\278478978.2
`-1-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6133 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`278, 299. Wi-LAN re-asserted the ’040 Patent in this case but not the ’640 Patent.
`
`Of the remaining five asserted patents, the ’761,’723, ’145 and ’020 Patents (the
`
`“Bandwidth Patents”) have specifications that are similar in varying degrees to the
`
`specification of ’640 Patent, but each has different claims. The ’040 and ’757
`
`Patents are not related to any other asserted patents or to the ’640 Patent.
`
`Moreover, the present case involves different accused technology and
`
`different accused products than the -798 case. Wi-LAN recently refocused its
`
`infringement case to accuse only the Voice over LTE (“VoLTE”) technology in
`
`some Apple products, which was not accused in the -798 case. In doing so, Wi-
`
`10
`
`LAN has accused entirely new products. Moreover, the Federal Circuit decision
`
`11
`
`affirming this Court’s grant of summary judgment gives important additional
`
`12
`
`context to the proper construction of the claim terms in this case. Therefore, this
`
`13
`
`case involves different infringement theories, different Apple source code and
`
`14
`
`potentially different prior art than the -798 case, and the Federal Circuit decision
`
`15
`
`provides guidance that was not available when the Court conducted claim
`
`16
`
`construction in the -798 case. The issues are therefore not “identical.”
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Furthermore, in the -798 case, the Court did not construe or even address
`
`eight of the nine terms at issue here.1 Contrary to Wi-LAN’s claim, in the prior
`
`19
`
`case the Court did not construe “subscriber station/unit,” “connections/uplink
`
`20
`
`connections,” “QoS,” or “queue(s).” Rather, “QoS” and “queue(s)” were agreed
`
`21
`
`constructions for purposes of the -798 case and the ’640 Patent only. No court has
`
`22
`
`ever resolved a dispute about the construction of those terms. The “subscriber
`
`23
`
`station/unit” terms were not construed before either; rather, the Court construed
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`1 Int’l Gamco Inc., v. Multimedia Games Inc. does not hold that “issue preclusion
`applies broadly to claim constructions following a final judgment” (Dkt. 163 at 4
`citing 732 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1089-92 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010)). On the contrary,
`Int’l Gamco addressed only a discrete issue as to the second factor of the
`Hydranautics test (“the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits”)
`and did not address the first factor (“the issue necessarily decided … is identical to
`the one which is sought to be relitigated”), which is the dispositive factor in this
`case.
`WEST\278478978.2
`
`-2-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6134 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“wireless subscriber radio unit” and “wireless communication radio unit.” -798
`
`case, Dkt. 98 at 7-8. As demonstrated below, these differences in claim scope are
`
`fatal to Wi-LAN’s proposed constructions of those terms. In the -798 case, the
`
`Court construed “UL connections” (Dkt. 98 at 8), not the different terms
`
`“connections” and “uplink connections” in different patents asserted here. As for
`
`“packing sub-header,” the Court construed that term in the ’040 Patent, but that
`
`claim construction ruling played no part in the final judgment in Apple’s favor, so it
`
`was not “necessarily decided” in the -798 case. -798 case, Dkt. 278.2 And in the -
`
`798 case, the Court did not consider dispositive intrinsic evidence that supports
`
`10
`
`Apple’s proposed construction, as demonstrated below.
`
`11
`
`The parties therefore should focus on the merits of their claim construction
`
`12
`
`disputes in this different case involving different patents, different claim terms,
`
`13
`
`significantly different infringement theories on different accused products and
`
`14
`
`technologies. The merits of the claim construction disputes favor Apple, which is
`
`15
`
`why Wi-LAN focuses on meritless claims of issue preclusion.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`II. THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT APPLE’S CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`A.
`
`Subscriber Station Terms (’145, ’723, ’761, ’020, ’757 Patents)
`
`Disputes about the Subscriber Station Terms frame most of the claim
`
`19
`
`construction issues in this case. The claims of the ’640 and ’040 Patents do not
`
`20
`
`recite any of the Subscriber Station Terms, and this Court has never construed any
`
`21
`
`of these terms. The Subscriber Station Terms are materially different in structure
`
`22
`
`and function from the ’640 Patent’s wireless subscriber/communication radio units.
`
`23
`
`The operation of the subscriber station vis-à-vis the claimed base station and user
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`2 e.Digital Corp. v. Huawei Tech., No. 3:13-cv-783-DMS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013)
`(Dkt. 163, Ex. E.) does not stand for the sweeping proposition that issue preclusion
`bars re-litigation of claim terms not essential to a final judgment. The Court’s
`focus on the fact that the parties in the first case agreed that resolution of the term
`would be case-dispositive (Ex. E at 7-8) shows the opposite—the dispositive nature
`of the construction of a claim term is material to whether issue preclusion applies.
`Here, there is no dispute the prior construction of “packing sub-header” was
`irrelevant to the Court’s summary judgment ruling.
`WEST\278478978.2
`-3-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6135 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`devices is the very core of the purported inventions embodied and claimed in the
`
`Bandwidth Patents and the ’757 Patent. See, e.g., Dkt. 164 at 3-8, 10-13. Indeed,
`
`the ’723 Patent states expressly that “[t]his invention relates … more particularly to
`
`a method and apparatus for efficiently allocating bandwidth between base stations
`
`and customer premises equipment in a broadband wireless communication system.”
`
`’723 Patent at 1:22-26 (emphasis added).
`
`As discussed in Apple’s opening brief, this Court also has never considered
`
`the prosecution history of the Bandwidth Patents or the ’757 Patent. “When
`
`multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history
`
`10
`
`regarding a claim limitation in any patent that has issued applies with equal force to
`
`11
`
`subsequently issued patents that contain the same limitation.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v.
`
`12
`
`Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the introduction of the
`
`13
`
`term “subscriber station” in parent prosecution histories supports Apple. U.S.
`
`14
`
`Patent No. 6,925,068 (“the ’068 Patent”) is a parent of the Bandwidth Patents that
`
`15
`
`was filed on May 21, 1999. See ’723 Patent (claiming priority to the ’068 Patent).
`
`16
`
`Unsurprisingly, the ’068 Patent claims a CPE, not a wireless radio unit. See Ex. 1
`
`17
`
`to Maggiore Decl., ’068 Patent at claims 24-25. U.S. Patent No. 8,189,514 (“the
`
`18
`
`’514 Patent”), filed June 29, 2005, also is a parent of the Bandwidth Patents. See
`
`19
`
`’723 Patent (claiming priority to the ’514 Patent). The ’514 Patent includes the first
`
`20
`
`instance of a recited Subscriber Station Term, and expressly equates a CPE with a
`
`21
`
`subscriber station. Specifically, claim 1 of the ’514 Patent recites “A method
`
`22
`
`performed by a base station in a broadband wireless communication system,
`
`23
`
`wherein the … system includes a plurality of customer premise equipment (CPE) in
`
`24
`
`communication with the base station …,” and dependent claim 12 recites “wherein
`
`25
`
`the contention polling process enables the selected CPE to contend with other
`
`26
`
`subscriber stations … .” Ex. 2, ’514 Patent (emphasis added). Thus, when the
`
`27
`
`applicants introduced the concept of a “subscriber station,” they equated it with a
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`CPE, and that equivalence applies “with equal force” to the Bandwidth Patents.
`WEST\278478978.2
`-4-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6136 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Elkay, 192 F.3d at 980.
`
`Wi-LAN’s arguments regarding the examiner’s rejections of the ’723 and
`
`’020 Patents (Dkt. 163 at 15-16) do not carry more weight than the interchangeable
`
`use of the terms “customer premise equipment” and “subscriber station” in the
`
`prosecution histories discussed above. Elkay, 192 F.3d at 980. Moreover, in
`
`footnote 9, Wi-LAN admits that the applicants had a practice of using different
`
`terms interchangeably to mean the same thing (Dkt. 163 at 15 n.9), undermining its
`
`contention that the applicants chose to use the Subscriber Station Terms to mean
`
`something other than a CPE in the asserted patents.
`
`10
`
`The Bandwidth Patents’ specifications further reinforce the interchangeable
`
`11
`
`use of the terms “subscriber station/unit” and CPE. For example, claim 1 of the
`
`12
`
`’723 Patent is directed to allocating bandwidth between a “subscriber unit” and a
`
`13
`
`base station. But the specification does not describe embodiments in which
`
`14
`
`bandwidth is allocated to a “subscriber unit.” Instead, the specification exclusively
`
`15
`
`refers to allocating bandwidth between a CPE and a base station. See id. at 1:22-25
`
`16
`
`(“This invention relates to … allocating bandwidth between base stations and
`
`17
`
`customer premises equipment …”); 2:50-54 (“CPE bandwidth allocation
`
`18
`
`requests”); 2:66-67 (“bandwidth requests generated by the CPE”); 3:3-6; 3:64-65.3
`
`19
`
`The patent’s exclusive reference to allocating bandwidth between a CPE and a base
`
`20
`
`station confirm that “subscriber station/unit” is synonymous with a CPE. Wi-LAN
`
`21
`
`USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`22
`
`Finally, Wi-LAN’s reference to U.S. Patent No. 6,016,311 (the “’311
`
`23
`
`Patent”) cannot broaden the asserted claims to cover “mobile cellular telephone
`
`24
`
`systems.” Dkt. 163 at 13-14. Isolated language in the “Description of Related Art”
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`(not a purported invention) arguably equating a system that has “subscriber radio
`
`3 In fact, “subscriber unit” does not even appear in the detailed description of the
`patent. Instead, the disclosed embodiments exclusively describe allocating
`bandwidth between CPEs and a base station. See id. at 7:5-10; 8:9-14; 8:44-59;
`9:15-23; 10:8-16; 11:33-38; 12:20-30; 13:3-12; 13:21-29; 15:20-25; 17:17-26;
`18:6-14; 18:44-49; 19:9-16; 21:2-5.
`WEST\278478978.2
`
`-5-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6137 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`stations ” with “mobile cellular telephone systems, [and] personal communications
`
`systems (PCS)” is not enough. See Ex. 3, ’311 Patent at 1:14-33; ’723 Patent at
`
`1:33-38. In fact, even the ’311 Patent equates a subscriber station/unit with a CPE,
`
`using the terms interchangeably. See ’311 Patent, Figs. 4, 7-8; 2:9-47 (detailing
`
`subscriber unit antennae and modems); 9:57-10:34 (description of wireless
`
`communication system); 11:27-13:3 (disclosure of residential and business CPE).
`
`Such CPE, as disclosed in the ’311 Patent, are “located at fixed customer sites 112
`
`throughout the coverage area of the cell 102.” Id. at 9:57-65 (emphasis added).
`
`And the ’311 Patent limits users of such subscriber stations (or “customers” /
`
`10
`
`“subscribers”) to “either residential or small business users.” Id. at 5:20-29; see
`
`11
`
`also Fig. 7 (“residential CPE”); Fig. 8 (“business CPE”); 9:57-10:34; 11:26-13:3;
`
`12
`
`14:7-16 (example of residential and business customer access of CPE). Wi-LAN’s
`
`13
`
`purported mobile device, which must be able to maintain a connection across
`
`14
`
`multiple cells, would not be limited to a residence or small business in a single cell,
`
`15
`
`as required by the ’311 Patent. Id. at 5:14-20 (“each cell including a base station …
`
`16
`
`each base station providing wireless connectivity to a plurality of customer sites
`
`17
`
`having a plurality of customer premises equipment.”).
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`B. Connection Terms (’145, ’723, ’761, ’020 and ’757 Patents)
`
`Wi-LAN at page 17 says it is adopting the Court’s construction of “UL
`
`connections”4 in the -798 case. But even a cursory comparison of Wi-LAN’s
`
`21
`
`proposals with the -798 case’s Order highlights a key difference: Wi-LAN is now
`
`22
`
`asking the Court to include the notion of a “subscriber unit” in place of the
`
`23
`
`“wireless subscriber radio unit” in the Court’s prior construction. The asserted
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`claims do not recite a “wireless subscriber radio unit.” Simply put, Wi-LAN is
`
`4 “UL connections” in the ’640 Patent bears superficial similarity to “uplink
`connections” in the ’757 Patent. See -798 case, Dkt. 98 at 8. But the ’757 Patent is
`not related to the ’640 Patent and therefore any constructions related to’640 are not
`binding here or applicable to the ’757 Patent. See, e.g., e.Digital, 772 F.3d at 726-
`27 (reiterating the “well-understood notion that claims of unrelated patents must be
`construed separately” and holding lower court erred in precluding the construction
`of an asserted patent in view of a prior construction of an unrelated patent).
`WEST\278478978.2
`-6-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6138 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`asking this Court (i) to adopt a new construction not found in the -798 case but, at
`
`the same time, (ii) to preclude Apple from even offering a construction here.
`
`The asserted patents here claim materially different purported inventions
`
`from the ’640 Patent, and the various specifications show those distinctions.5 The
`
`Connection Terms here are used to describe communication pathways in a wireless
`
`communication system having a subscriber station/unit, which is distinct from the
`
`system claimed in the ’640 Patent. The Court did not address such a system in the
`
`-798 case. Rather, this Court recognized expressly that the wireless radio units of
`
`the ’640 Patent’s communication system were not the same as a CPE/subscriber
`
`10
`
`station. -798 case, Dkt. 98 at 7-8. Here, the Bandwidth Patents and the ’757 Patent
`
`11
`
`claim a subscriber station/unit-based communication system whereby the base
`
`12
`
`station and the CPE (subscriber station), and CPE and user devices communicate
`
`13
`
`via “connections” between the separate devices—not within a single device. See,
`
`14
`
`e.g., ’020 Patent at 12:41-45, 2:11-14, 4:30-32, 4:58-62; ’761 Patent at 12:41-45,
`
`15
`
`2:11-14, 4:30-32, 4:58-62; ’723 Patent at 2:10-15, 4:9-12, 12:14-17; ’145 Patent at
`
`16
`
`2:15-19, 7:12-15, 15:26-30. For example, the ’020 Patent explains that “[a]
`
`17
`
`particular base station may be configured to treat any or all of discrete connections,
`
`18
`
`groups of connections, CPEs, or other logical or physical entities, as distinct users.”
`
`19
`
`’020 Patent at 4:30-32 (emphasis added). By contrast, the ’640 Patent does not
`
`20
`
`21
`
`describe “users” as distinct or connections as discrete.6
`
`Moreover, each of Wi-LAN’s six points about its new construction fails.
`
`22
`
`Dkt. 163 at 18-19. First, contrary to Wi-LAN’s argument that nothing in the claim
`
`23
`
`language requires a device distinct from the users, the claims of the Bandwidth
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`5 Wi-LAN argues that “the only intrinsic evidence Apple cites is passages from the
`’723 patent.” Dkt. 163 at 18 (citing only to the JCCS Chart). To the contrary, in its
`opening brief, Apple cites to, inter alia, the ’020 patent as another example.
`6 Regardless, issue preclusion should not apply here where the relevant patents-in-
`suit do not all share a specification with the ’640 Patent. See Mallinckrodt, Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., 254 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1150 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (collateral estoppel did
`not apply where only two of the patents-in-suit shared the specification of the
`previously-construed patent).
`WEST\278478978.2
`
`-7-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6139 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Patents and the ’757 Patent all require the presence of a subscriber station/unit (not
`
`a wireless radio unit), which is a CPE. Second, neither the Bandwidth Patents nor
`
`the ’757 Patent equate the claimed subscriber station/unit with a cellular telephone.
`
`Tellingly, Wi-LAN relies upon only ambiguous language from the ’311 Patent
`
`regarding “related art” in the background of the Bandwidth Patents, not the
`
`description of the claimed subject matter. Third, Wi-LAN points to the prosecution
`
`histories of the ’640 and ’723 Patents. But the ’640 Patent dealt with subscriber
`
`radio units, which is not at issue here. Also, as established above, the examiner’s
`
`statements during prosecution of the ’723 Patent are not dispositive, particularly in
`
`10
`
`view of Wi-LAN’s own statements confirming that the terms CPE and “subscriber
`
`11
`
`station” were used interchangeably. See Section II.A, supra. And the fact that the
`
`12
`
`PTO rejected the claims of the ’020 Patent over a mobile cellular communication
`
`13
`
`system does not somehow broaden the scope of the Bandwidth Patents beyond their
`
`14
`
`express disclosure. Fourth, Wi-LAN’s argument that the wireless subscriber unit
`
`15
`
`cannot be both portable and have connected user devices is wrong. As stated in
`
`16
`
`Apple’s construction, the connections to the user devices may be wired or wireless,
`
`17
`
`which is consistent with the notion that the subscriber unit may be portable. Fifth,
`
`18
`
`Wi-LAN improperly equates “users” with “services” to imply that Apple’s
`
`19
`
`reference to user devices is somehow improper. While the ’723 specification may
`
`20
`
`reference applications and services of the user, nowhere does it equate services with
`
`21
`
`users. Thus, services such as voice or video may be served by the connections
`
`22
`
`(Dkt. 163 at 19), but they are not connected to the CPE.7 Wi-LAN also quotes part
`
`23
`
`of the Court’s prior Markman Order in its attempt to equate users with services, but
`
`24
`
`the quoted passage comes from the Court’s analysis of the ’040 Patent, which is
`
`25
`
`unrelated to the Bandwidth Patents and therefore irrelevant to these claim terms.
`
`26
`
`Dkt. 163 at 19:5-7; Ex. A at 4. Sixth, it is true the parties have stipulated here to
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`7 This is consistent with the Court’s prior constructions, though those constructions
`are not binding here for the reasons discussed above.
`WEST\278478978.2
`-8-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6140 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`the prior construction of “specified connections” in the ’040 Patent. In fact, this is
`
`the only “connection” term at issue here that was construed in the -798 case. The
`
`’040 Patent is unrelated to the patents that recite the Connection Terms and does
`
`not claim CPEs (subscriber stations), but rather more generic “nodes.” See ’040
`
`Patent at claim 1.
`
`C.
`
`“QoS” (’145 and ’723 Patents)
`
`The stipulated construction of “QoS” in the -798 case played no role in this
`
`Court’s summary judgment ruling of noninfringement. Wi-LAN’s new
`
`infringement contentions and new asserted claims focus on VoLTE technology (not
`
`10
`
`at issue before) and require QoS to be examined and defined much more precisely.
`
`11
`
`The intrinsic evidence here compels the precise construction that Apple proposes.
`
`12
`
`For example, after explaining that the “base station MAC is responsible for
`
`13
`
`allocating the available bandwidth … between the various services depending upon
`
`14
`
`the priorities and rules imposed by their quality of service,” the ’723 Patent clarifies
`
`15
`
`that “the higher control sub-layers of the base station MAC allocate across more
`
`16
`
`than one physical channel.” 18:34-42. The ’723 Patent unquestionably identifies
`
`17
`
`only the MAC as the allocator of bandwidth pursuant to QoS rules across multiple
`
`18
`
`physical channels. e.Digital, 772 F.3d at 727 (“A continuation-in-part, for instance,
`
`19
`
`may disclose new matter that could materially impact the interpretation of a claim,
`
`20
`
`and therefore require a new claim construction inquiry”); see also Wang Labs., Inc.
`
`21
`
`v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377, 1381, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim term not
`
`22
`
`construed to refer to both “character-based systems” and “bit-mapped display
`
`23
`
`systems” where the specification only described character-based systems).
`
`24
`
`Apple also cited intrinsic evidence from the ’723 Patent related to the role of
`
`25
`
`QoS in the technique of “piggybacking” bandwidth requests. The ’723 Patent
`
`26
`
`explains that “[i]f the selected CPE is allocated less bandwidth for a frame than is
`
`27
`
`necessary to transmit all waiting data, the CPE must use the QoSs and fairness
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`algorithms to service its queues.” 19:36-39. Thus, the “CPE may ‘steal’ bandwidth
`WEST\278478978.2
`-9-
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CC BRIEF – 3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 176 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.6141 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`from lower QoS connections to piggyback request for more bandwidth using the
`
`piggybacking technique.” Id. at 19:39-41.
`
`Wi-LAN’s argument that the asserted claims reference the MAC when
`
`required for QoS (Dkt. 163 at 8) mischaracterizes the claims. Although some
`
`claims reference a MAC in relation to functions other than QoS (see ’145 Patent at
`
`claim 2, reciting a MAC module configured to set an initial value for a timer), no
`
`claim distinguishes between QoS performed in the MAC as opposed to elsewhere.
`
`D.
`
`“queue(s)” (’145, ’723, ’761, ’020 Patents)
`
`The parties agree that “queue” should be construed as something containing
`
`10
`
`data to be transmitted. But Wi-LAN argues that Apple’s proposed construction
`
`11
`
`improperly identifies the MAC and QoS, and concludes that term should instead
`
`12
`
`simply involve an unspecified and overly broad “structure.” Dkt. 163 at 9. Wi-
`
`13
`
`LAN thus proposes a construction with even less meani