Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7008 Page 1 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`Mark C. Scarsi (SBN 183926)
` mscarsi@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP
`2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (424) 386-4000
`Facsimile: (213) 629-5063
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Apple Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`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
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`WI-LAN INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No.: 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM;
`Consolidated with 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-
`BLM
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`STATEMENT, CHART AND
`WORKSHEET
`
`
`Department: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`Complaint Filed: June 19, 2014
`
`-1-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND
`WORKSHEET Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS (BLM)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7009 Page 2 of 121
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`In anticipation of the upcoming claim construction hearing on October 30,
`
`2017, and in accordance with the Court’s Amended Case Management Order and
`
`the Local Rules, Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Plaintiff”) and Wi-LAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”
`
`or “Defendant”) file this Amended Joint Claim Construction Hearing Statement,
`
`Chart, and Worksheet.
`
`I.
`
`Anticipated Time for Hearing
`
`The parties request one half day for the hearing.
`
`II. Witnesses at the Hearing
`
`10
`
`The parties will not call any witnesses, including experts, at the hearing.
`
`11
`
`III. Order of Presentation
`
`12
`
`The parties propose that Wi-LAN argue first, followed by Apple, followed
`
`13
`
`by Wi-LAN’s rebuttal argument.
`
`14
`
`The parties dispute whether or not a technology tutorial will be presented to
`
`15
`
`the Court, and ask the Court to resolve the issue.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`[Wi-LAN’s position:]
`
`Apple’s request for a technology tutorial at the Claim Construction Hearing
`
`18
`
`should be denied. Today, Friday, October 27, 2017, Apple indicated for the first
`
`19
`
`time that it intended to conduct a separate tutorial hearing in this case at the Claim
`
`20
`
`Construction Hearing. The parties submitted a JCCS on August 10, 2017, which
`
`21
`
`identified the structure, procedure, and timing for the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`22
`
`At no point in the discussions regarding the JCCS (or at any time prior to today)
`
`23
`
`did Apple indicate that it intended to have a tutorial hearing at the Claim
`
`24
`
`Construction Hearing. Having a separate tutorial hearing and discussing the
`
`25
`
`structure, procedure, and timing of such a technology tutorial is certainly
`
`26
`
`something that should have been raised by Apple before today. Wi-LAN advised
`
`27
`
`Apple that such tutorial is unnecessary in light of the prior litigation, the Court’s
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND WORKSHEET
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7010 Page 3 of 121
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`familiarity with the patents, and the time constraints given the number of terms and
`
`issues to be resolved by the Court. Apple believes that this Court’s Amended Case
`
`Management Order scheduled a technology tutorial. See Dkt. 116 at ¶9. However,
`
`that Order makes clear that such technology tutorial is subject to Patent Local Rule
`
`4.5 which states that “The Court may also order in its discretion a tutorial hearing
`
`to occur before, or on the date of, the Claim Construction Hearing.” Here, the
`
`Court did not order a tutorial, and Apple never raised this issue until today - the
`
`last day before the hearing. To try to resolve the dispute, Wi-LAN requested that
`
`Apple provide its tutorial slides so that Wi-LAN could determine the scope of
`
`10
`
`Apple’s proposed tutorial and whether it needs to prepare a separate tutorial in
`
`11
`
`response. Apple refused. Apple is free to explain the technology in the context of
`
`12
`
`oral argument regarding any one of the disputed terms, but a separate tutorial is
`
`13
`
`prejudicial and unnecessary.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`[Apple’s position:]
`
`For two reasons, Apple should be permitted to provide a short technical
`
`16
`
`tutorial to the Court before the parties begin their arguments on the disputed
`
`17
`
`terms. First, the Court’s Amended Case Management Order expressly orders that
`
`18
`
`the “Claim Construction and tutorial hearing will be held October 30, 2017, at 9:00
`
`19
`
`a.m.,” (Dkt. No. 116 at 2, emphasis added), thus contemplating that either or both
`
`20
`
`of the parties would provide a tutorial to the Court during the claim construction
`
`21
`
`hearing. The Court has not amended this Order, and nothing in the parties’ August
`
`22
`
`10 Joint Claim Construction Statement sought to take the tutorial hearing off
`
`23
`
`calendar. Dkt. No. 143. Second, Wi-LAN ignores the benefits of technical
`
`24
`
`tutorials, including the context for the claim construction arguments they
`
`25
`
`provide. Notably, both parties’ opening claim construction briefs provided a
`
`26
`
`background of the technology before arguing the specific terms in dispute. Apple
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND WORKSHEET
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7011 Page 4 of 121
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`believes a similar tutorial on the background of the technology will be helpful for
`
`the Court at the claim construction hearing, and is prepared to provide one.
`
`III. Significant Terms for Construction
`
`The parties agree to the following nine (9) disputed terms as among the ten
`
`most significant terms for construction:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`packing sub-header (‘040 Patent);
`
`queue(s) (‘145 Patent; ‘723 Patent; ‘761 Patent; ‘020 Patent);
`
`wireless subscriber unit / subscriber unit / subscriber radio unit /
`
`subscriber station (‘145 Patent; ‘723 Patent; ‘020 Patent; ‘761 Patent;
`
`‘757 Patent);1
`
`4.
`
`connections / uplink connections / a plurality of connections served by
`
`the subscriber unit / connections established at a [or the] subscriber
`
`unit [or subscriber station] (‘145 Patent; ‘723 Patent; ‘020 Patent;
`
`‘761 Patent; ‘757 Patent); and
`
`poll-me bit (‘020 Patent);
`
`poll-me message (‘020 Patent);
`
`frame map / sub-frame map (‘723 Patent; ‘020 Patent; ‘757 Patent);
`
`whether the preamble of independent claim 26 of the ‘145 Patent is
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`limiting;
`
`9.
`
`fairness algorithm (‘145 Patent).
`
`Apple does not contend that the construction of any of these terms is case or
`
`22
`
`claim dispositive, as the claims are invalid and/or not infringed under either side’s
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 The parties dispute whether the term “subscriber radio unit” should be construed
`by the Court. [Apple statement:] Apple contends that the incidence of the term
`in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,462,723 is a scrivener’s error and the term should
`be read “subscriber unit.” [Wi-LAN statement:] The Patentee used the terms
`“wireless subscriber unit” and “subscriber radio unit” interchangeably, as the
`intrinsic record shows, and the terms should be construed the same.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND WORKSHEET
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7012 Page 5 of 121
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`construction. Wi-LAN does not contend the construction of any of these terms are
`
`case or claim dispositive, as the claims are valid and infringed under either side’s
`
`construction.
`
`Since filing the original Joint Claim Construction materials, the parties have
`
`agreed to the construction of the following term:
`
`1.
`
`QoS (’145 patent; ‘723 patent)
`
`Since filing the original Joint Claim Construction materials, Apple has
`
`modified its proposed constructions for the following terms (as reflected in the
`
`modified Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart attached as Exhibit A and the
`
`10
`
`Amended Joint Claim Construction Worksheet attached as Exhibit B):
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`1. Queue(s)
`
`2. Frame map / sub-frame map
`
`3. Poll-me bit / poll-me message
`
`14
`
`IV. Joint Claim Construction Chart and Worksheet
`
`15
`
`The parties have attached their Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart as
`
`16
`
`Exhibit A and the Amended Joint Claim Construction Worksheet as Exhibit B to
`
`17
`
`this statement.
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND WORKSHEET
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7013 Page 6 of 121
`
`
`
`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
`
`Dated: October 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Allison Goddard____________
`
` Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
` PATTERSON LAW GROUP
` 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
` San Diego, CA 92101
` (619) 398-4760
` (619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
` Robert Cote
` rcote@mckoolsmith.com
` Brett Cooper
` bcooper@mckoolsmith.com
` Jonathan Yim
` jyim@mckoolsmith.com
` Kevin Schubert
` kschubert@mckoolsmith.com
` McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
` One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
` New York, NY 10036
` (212) 402-9400
` (212) 402-9444 (facsimile)
`
` Seth Hasenour
` shasenour@mckoolsmith.com
` MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
` 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
` Austin, TX 78701
` (512) 692-8700
` (512) 692-8744 (facsimile)
`
` Attorneys for Defendant,
` Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`Sean Cunningham
`/s/
`By:
` John Allcock
` john.allcock@dlapiper.com
` Sean C. Cunningham
` sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
` Erin Gibson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND WORKSHEET
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7014 Page 7 of 121
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` erin.gison@dlapiper.com
` Robert Buergi
` robert.buergi@dlaiper.com
` Robert Williams
` robert.williams@dlapiper.com
` Tiffany Miller
` tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
` Jacob Anderson
` jacob.anderson@dlapiper.com
` DLA Piper LLP (US)
` 401 B Street, Street, Suite 1700
` San Diego, CA 92101-4297
` (619) 699.2700
` (619) 699.2701 (facsimile)
`
` Mark C. Scarsi
` mscarsi@milbank.com
` Ashlee N. Lin
` anlin@milbank.com
` Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
` McCloy LLP
` 2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
` Los Angeles, California 90067
` (424) 386-4000
` (619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff,
` Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND WORKSHEET
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7015 Page 8 of 121
`
`
`
`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
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on October 27, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
`
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT,
`
`CHART AND WORKSHEET was filed through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`Dated: October 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Allison Goddard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
` PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
` San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING STATEMENT, CHART AND WORKSHEET
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7016 Page 9 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7017 Page 10 of 121
`
`
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart
`Construed Terms: bold and underlined 1st occurrence in red
`
`Proposed constructions: [bracketed and italicized]
`
`Terms other than the Construed Terms take their own meaning.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`
`
`1a.
`
`A node for a
`communications
`system that packs
`and fragments
`variable-length
`service data units
`(SDU) for mapping
`into variable length
`protocol data units
`(PDU), each SDU
`being associated
`with a specified
`connection, the
`node comprising:
`
`node [a module between a base
`station and an end user that
`directs transmission of data over
`a communications link
`
`
`
`The Court further clarified its
`construction stating “the
`evidence supports Wi-Lan’s
`position that it should be allowed
`to argue that the ‘wireless
`subscriber radio unit/wireless
`communication radio unit’ could
`be a component part of a user
`device,” and that “the term
`‘node’ is interpreted in
`accordance with the terms
`‘wireless subscriber radio
`unit/wireless communication
`radio unit.’”]2
`
`
`
`
`2 See Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration, Dkt. 123 in Wi-LAN v. Apple, Case No. 13-cv-0798-DMS-BLM, at p. 3.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1b.
`
`1c.
`
`1d.
`
`specified connection [the
`communications link between a
`node and a specific end user]
`
`
`bandwidth [data-carrying
`capacity]
`
`priority [plain and ordinary
`meaning]
`
`frame [collection of physical
`slots]
`
`a communications
`processor
`configured to pack
`and fragment
`SDUs associated
`with a specified
`connection into a
`PDU, including
`
`allocate
`bandwidth for the
`specified
`connection, based
`on the priority of
`the connection,
`
`establish a length
`for the PDU based
`on the bandwidth
`allocated to the
`specified
`connection in a
`current frame,
`
`1e.
`
`pack a first SDU
`into a payload area
`of the PDU,
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7018 Page 11 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1f.
`
`1g.
`
`1h.
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7019 Page 12 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determine whether
`a second SDU is
`larger than a
`remaining payload
`area of the PDU,
`
`if the second SDU
`is not larger than
`the remaining
`payload area of the
`PDU, map the
`second SDU to the
`remaining payload
`area of the PDU,
`and
`
`if the second SDU
`is larger than the
`remaining payload
`area of the PDU,
`fragment the
`second SDU into at
`least two fragments
`and map the first
`fragment to the
`remaining payload
`area of the PDU,
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1i.
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7020 Page 13 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`include packing
`sub-headers in the
`PDU to allow
`determination of
`the length of the
`SDUs and the
`lengths of the
`fragments that are
`mapped to the
`PDU.
`
`packing sub-headers [a header
`located in a PDU payload]
`
`packing sub-headers [a header located
`in a PDU]
`
`Impact Statement
`The claim requires a specific type of
`header be used. Specifically the
`claims, as informed by the
`specification, require including a
`packing sub-header that is a header in
`the payload of the PDU, which may
`contain certain PDU header
`information. The accused devices
`and instrumentalities do not use
`packing sub-headers included in the
`PDU payload as the claims require.
`
`
`Evidence
`Testimony of J. Proctor
`
`’040 Patent at figs. 8, 14; cols. 11:31-
`60; 12:33-53; 18:15-37
`
`USPTO Notice of Allowance, U.S.
`12/886,314 (September 20, 2012)
`
`Terminal Disclaimer, U.S.
`12/886,314 (August 13, 2012)
`
`Wi-LAN Response to Office Action,
`U.S. 12/886,314 (August 13, 2012)
`
`-4-
`
`Impact Statement
`Apple seeks to re-litigate an issue the
`Court already considered and rejected
`twice in Apple I. See Dkt. 123
`(Clarification Order) at 3-4; Dkt. 134
`(Order Denying Reconsideration) at 1-3.
`The claim does not require packing sub-
`headers located in the PDU payload. Id.
`The claims are valid and infringed under
`either side’s construction.
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`Wi-LAN v. Apple, 13-CV-798-DMS-
`BLM (S.D. Cal): Clarification Order
`(Dkt. 123) and Order Denying Apple
`Motion for Reconsideration of
`Clarification Order (Dkt. 134) and all
`associated briefing, exhibits, and
`supporting evidence; Apple’s
`Responsive Markman Brief (Dkt. 86) at
`17; Joint Stipulated Final Judgment
`(Dkt. 303). Order and Apple’s briefing
`in Wi-LAN v. Apple, Case No. 2015-
`1256 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016).
`
`‘040 at Abstract, 2:9-14; 2:51-3:19;
`11:31-12:53; 17:20-19:27; and
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`5.
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7021 Page 14 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`USPTO Non-Final Office Action,
`U.S. 12/886,314 (July 24, 2012)
`
`Case 3:13-cv-798, Doc. 98 at 5
`(Order Construing Patent Claims)
`
`Case 3:13-cv-798, Doc. 123 at 3-4
`(Clarification Order)
`
`Case 3:13-cv-798, Clarification
`Motion Hearing Transcript (April 2,
`2014)
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`accompanying figures; Claims 1, 4, 5,
`11, 12, 14, 16
`
`Testimony of Vijay Madisetti and/or
`Ken Stanwood (to the extent the Court
`deems experts necessary)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A node as claimed
`in claim 1, wherein
`the
`communications
`processor is further
`configured to
`fragment the first
`SDU if the length
`of the first SDU is
`larger than the
`payload area of the
`PDU.
`
`A node as claimed
`in claim 1, wherein
`a packing sub-
`header comprises
`a fragmentation
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7022 Page 15 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`control field
`indicating whether
`the corresponding
`service data unit is
`a first fragment, a
`continuing
`fragment, a last
`fragment, or an un-
`fragmented SDU.
`
`
`
`
`
`14a. A node for a
`communications
`system that packs
`and fragments
`variable-length
`service data units
`(SDU) into
`variable length
`protocol data units
`(PDU), the node
`comprising:
`
`14b.
`
`a communications
`processor which
`packs and
`fragments SDUs
`associated with a
`specified
`connection into a
`PDU, the
`communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`14c.
`
`processor being
`configured to
`
`establish a length
`for the PDU based
`on bandwidth
`currently allocated
`to the specified
`connection in a
`current frame
`based on the
`priority associated
`with the specified
`connection,
`
`14d. pack a first SDU
`into the payload
`area of the PDU, if
`the first SDU is not
`larger than payload
`area of the PDU
`and provide a
`corresponding
`packing sub-
`header,
`
`14e.
`
`fragment the
`second SDU into at
`least two fragments
`if a second SDU is
`larger than a
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7023 Page 16 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7024 Page 17 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14f.
`
`remaining payload
`area of the PDU,
`and
`
`pack a first
`fragment of the
`second SDU into
`the remaining
`payload area of the
`PDU and provide a
`corresponding
`packing sub-
`header,
`
`14g. wherein the
`packing sub-
`headers comprise
`a length field
`specifying the
`length of the
`respective
`corresponding
`SDU or SDU
`fragment, and
`further include a
`fragmentation
`control field
`indicating whether
`the respective
`corresponding
`SDU or SDU
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7025 Page 18 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`fragment is a first
`fragment, a
`continuing
`fragment, a last
`fragment, or an un-
`fragmented SDU.
`
`The node as
`claimed in claim
`14, wherein the
`communication
`processor is further
`configured to
`fragment the first
`SDU if the length
`of the first SDU is
`larger than the
`payload area of the
`PDU, and map a
`first fragment to
`the payload area of
`the PDU.
`
`16b. provisioning a
`protocol data unit
`(PDU), including a
`header and a
`payload area,
`wherein the length
`of the PDU is
`established in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7026 Page 19 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`conjunction with
`the bandwidth
`amount allocated
`to the specified
`connection in a
`current frame, the
`bandwidth amount
`being established
`frame-by-frame
`based on one or
`more
`communication
`parameters
`associated with the
`specified
`connection,
`including the
`priority of the
`specified
`connection, and
`general system
`parameters;
`
`
`
`16c. packing and
`fragmenting the
`SDUs associated
`with the specified
`connection into
`the payload area of
`the PDU based on
`the current length
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`16d.
`
`of the payload
`area;
`
`adding a packing
`sub-header for the
`SDUs and the
`fragments that are
`packed and
`fragmented in the
`PDU, to allow
`determination of
`the length of the
`SDUs and the
`fragments; and
`
`16e. prepending a
`header to the PDU
`that indicates the
`length of the PDU.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7027 Page 20 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent 8,311,040
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7028 Page 21 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Claim
`
`1a. A method of
`allocating uplink
`(UL) bandwidth in
`a wireless
`subscriber unit in
`communication
`with an associated
`base station, the
`method comprising:
`
`U.S. Patent 8,462,723
`
`
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`wireless subscriber unit [fixed or
`portable customer premises
`equipment that wirelessly receives
`UL bandwidth from a base station,
`and allocates the bandwidth across
`connected user devices]3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Impact Statement
`The specification defines subscriber
`unit / subscriber station in clear
`relation to a base station. Subscriber
`stations are either fixed or portable
`customer premises equipment that
`wirelessly receives UL bandwidth
`from a base station, and allocates the
`bandwidth across connected user
`devices. The accused devices and
`instrumentalities are not fixed or
`portable and are not subscriber
`stations.
`
`Apple notes that the terms “wireless
`subscriber unit,” “subscriber unit”
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`wireless subscriber unit [module that
`receives UL bandwidth from a base
`station, and allocates the bandwidth
`across its user connections
`
`As clarified by the Court, a subscriber
`unit/subscriber station can be a
`component part of a user device]4
`
`
`
`
`Impact Statement
`Apple seeks to re-litigate an issue the
`Court already considered and rejected
`twice in Apple I as to a parent patent
`with the same specification. See Dkt.
`123 (Clarification Order) at 1-3; Dkt.
`134 (Order Denying Reconsideration) at
`1-2. Specifically, Apple re-litigates
`whether the “wireless subscriber unit”
`can be a component part of a user
`device. The claim does not require a
`CPE allocating bandwidth to connected
`user devices. Id. The claims are valid
`and infringed under either side’s
`construction.
`
`
`
`3 The terms “subscriber unit” and “subscriber station” also appear in the claims. The parties propose the same respective constructions for these terms.
`4 See Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration, Dkt. 123 in Wi-LAN v. Apple, Case No. 13-cv-0798-DMS-BLM, at p. 3.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7029 Page 22 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`U.S. Patent 8,462,723
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`and “subscriber station” were not
`construed in Wi-LAN v. Apple, 13-
`CV-798-DMS-BLM. Instead the
`term “wireless subscriber radio
`unit/wireless communication radio
`unit” was construed. (Emphasis
`added.) Additionally, the Court
`noted a difference between the term
`“subscriber stations” and “wireless
`radio units” in its claim construction
`order in that case. See Case 3:13-cv-
`798, Doc. 98 at 7-8 (Order
`Construing Patent Claims).
`
`Evidence
`‘723 patent: abstract, Figs. 1, 4-8, and
`13; Cols. 1:28-50; 1:61-2:15.
`
`‘757 patent: Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 1:27-
`52.
`
`Testimony of J. Proctor
`
`Wi-LAN Amendment after Notice of
`Allowance, No. 13/089,024 (May 1,
`2013)
`
`Wi-LAN Response to Non-Final
`Office Action, U.S. 13/089,024
`(February 19, 2013)
`
`USPTO Non-Final Office Action,
`
`-13-
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`Evidence
`Wi-LAN v. Apple, 13-CV-798-DMS-
`BLM (S.D. Cal): Markman Order (Dkt.
`98); Clarification Order (Dkt. 123) and
`Order Denying Apple Motion for
`Reconsideration of Clarification Order
`(Dkt. 134) and all associated briefing,
`exhibits, and supporting evidence;
`Apple’s Opening Markman Brief (Dkt.
`83) at 8-11; Apple’s Responsive
`Markman Brief (Dkt. 86) at 6-13;
`Markman Hearing Transcript (Dkt. 97)
`at 56, 81-82. Summary Judgment Order
`(Dkt. 278) and Reconsideration of
`Summary Judgment Order (Dkt. 299);
`Joint Stipulated Final Judgment (Dkt.
`303). Order and Apple’s briefing in Wi-
`LAN v. Apple, Case No. 2015-1256
`(Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016).
`
`‘757 at 1:27-52; 3:5-25; 17:32-43; and
`accompanying figures; claims 1-24.
`‘145 at 1:32-2:19; 8:65-9:17; 31:33-63;
`and accompanying figures; claims 1-29.
`‘723 at 1:28-2:15; 5:53-6:4; 22:24-23:5;
`and accompanying figures; claims 1-9.
`‘020 at 1:30-60; 5:56-6:13; 37:30-38:22;
`and accompanying figures; claims 1-25.
`‘761 at 1:30-60; 5:56-6:13; 37:30-38:21;
`and accompanying figures; claims 1-20.
`‘040 at 1:16-6:24; 9:27-30; 10:14-18;
`11:5-24; 14:67-15:7; 19:16-27; and
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7030 Page 23 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`U.S. Patent 8,462,723
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`U.S. 13/089,024 (January 31, 2013)
`
`Wi-LAN Response to Non-Final
`Office Action, U.S. 13/272,565
`(February 19, 2013)
`
`USPTO Final Office Action, U.S.
`13/272,565 (March 14, 2013)
`
`Wi-LAN Request for Continued
`Examintion, U.S. 13/272,565 (June 6,
`2013)
`
`Eklund et al., IEEE Standard 802.16:
`A Technical Overview of
`WirelessMAN™ Air Interface for
`Broadband Wireless Access, IEEE
`Communications Magazine, pp. 98-
`107, June 2002.
`
`IEEE Std 802.16™-2001 (Part 16:
`Air Interface for Fixed Broadband
`Wireless Access Systems)
`
`IEEE Std 802.16™-2004 (Part 16:
`Air Interface for Fixed Broadband
`Wireless Access Systems)
`
`IEEE Std 802.16.2-2001
`(Coexistence of Fixed Broadband
`Wireless Access Systems)
`
`
`-14-
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`accompanying figures; claims 1-22.
`Overlapping cites in the related patents-
`in-suit to the extent not cited.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,097,733; 5,297,144;
`6,374,112; 5,420,851; 5,896,561;
`5,638,371; 5,818,845; 6,212,200;
`5,644,576.
`
`File Histories: ‘723: 4/18/2011 Claims;
`1/31/2013 Office Action (“OA”);
`2/19/2013 Response to OA; ‘020:
`8/29/2012 OA; 2/19/2013 Response to
`OA; 3/14/2013 OA; 6/6/2013 Response
`to OA; 7/12/2013 OA. 8,315,640:
`12/14/2010 OA; 3/31/11 Response to
`OA; 4/11/2011 OA; 6/20/2011
`Response to OA; 9/12/2011 OA;
`2/10/2012 Response to OA; 3/28/2012
`Response to OA; 4/10/2012 OA;
`6/6/2012 Response to OA; 6/20/2012
`OA; 9/19/2012 Response to OA.
`6,925,068: 6/2/2003 OA; 8/29/2003
`Response to OA; OA; 10/29/2003 OA;
`3/1/2004 Response to OA; 5/12/2004
`10/5/2004 Response to OA. 7,751,437:
`7/18/2008 OA; 1/15/2009 Response to
`OA; 5/13/2009 OA; 10/13/2009
`Response to OA; 12/17/2009 OA;
`1/28/10 Response to OA. 8,311,040:
`7/24/2012 OA; 8/13/2012 Response to
`OA; 8,009,667: 8/31/2006 OA; 3/3/2006
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7031 Page 24 of 121
`
`Patent Claim
`
`U.S. Patent 8,462,723
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`IEEE Std 802.16.2™-2004
`(Coexistence of Fixed Broadband
`Wireless Access Systems)
`
`IEEE 802.16 Working Group,
`“Packet Convergence Sublayer for
`802.16.1 Air Interface Specification”
`
`Mark C. Wood, “An Analysis of the
`Design and Implementation of QoS
`over IEEE 802.16,” Apr. 23, 2006.
`
`Phuong Nguyen, “IEEE 802.16
`Wireless MAN (Wireless
`Metropolitan Network),” Fall 2007.
`
`Worldwide Interoperability for
`Microwave Access Forum, “IEEE
`802.16a Standard and WiMAX
`Igniting Broadband Wireless
`Access.”
`
`Radio-Electronics.com, “WiMAX
`Network Architecture,”
`(http://www.radio-
`electronics.com/info/wireless/wimax/
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`Amendment to Claims. 7,751,437
`Claim 5. 8,654,664: 4/18/2011 Claims;
`10/30/2012 OA; 1/25/2013 Response to
`OA; 2/11/2013 OA; 6/24/2013
`Response to OA; 6/24/2013 Claims;
`7/11/2013 OA; 9/23/2013 Response to
`OA; 10/9/2013 OA. All references
`discussed in the cited OAs/Responses.
`
`Testimony of Vijay Madisetti and/or
`Ken Stanwood (to the extent the Court
`deems experts necessary)5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 With respect to Apple’s extrinsic documents regarding Ensemble or the WiMAX standard, Wi-LAN believes that the intrinsic record is more probative but, while
`preserving its rights to argue these documents have little or no relevance to claim construction, Wi-LAN may rely on Apple’s evidence or other Ensemble or WiMAX
`documentation, including but not limited to W2235-00031591-W2235-00032318; W2235-00000055-00000105; W2235-00020079-00020150, to rebut allegations
`made by Apple.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 187 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.7032 Page 25 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Claim
`
`U.S. Patent 8,462,723
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction Apple’s Prop